Irrigation Leader May 2016

Volume 7 Issue 5 May 2016

Water Conservation and Delivery Efficiency in the Central Valley: A Conversation With Peter Rietkerk of South San Joaquin Irrigation District

Forward-Thinking Innovators

By Kris Polly

T

his issue of Irrigation Leader magazine is about good people doing their best with bad circumstances and finding solutions. From natural drought to government-imposed regulations, our irrigation districts and farmers face tremendous challenges.

Our interview with South San Joaquin Irrigation District General Manager Peter Rietkerk describes the extraordinary efforts by his district and farmers in working with limited water supplies. The management flexibility and innovative tools that the South San Joaquin Irrigation District developed are great examples for others. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), a former water law attorney and long-time champion of irrigation, discusses his Sensible Environmental Protection Act, S. 1500, to remove duplicative regulatory controls on the use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–approved herbicides. Mike Schwisow provides us an update on the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District’s efforts to bring surface water to the Odessa. Kate Woods, who is vice president of the Northwest Horticultural Council and was one of the sharpest congressional staffers I have known, explains the implementation status of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Don Barnett, executive director of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, discusses ongoing efforts to control and remove salt from the Colorado River. Johnny Amaral, Tony Azevedo, and Sarah Woolf do a great job describing the Westlands

Water District and informing our readers about how the more than 700 family farms in Westlands efficiently grow food and fiber for our country—all with minimal water supplies. Jeff Welsh of Alligare talks about trends in the aquatic herbicide industry and the importance of customer service. Our innovators, Henry Goff of Permalok and Bryan Wedin of Presto Geosystems, respectively describe unique technologies for pipe culvert replacement and creating flexible slab for better erosion and canal bank control.

My favorite quote from Peter Rietkerk’s interview is, “The forefathers of the district were forward-thinking innovators—implementing storage, hydropower, and water conveyance projects that have served the local area well for over 100 years.” Such an appropriate description and one that can be applied to water supply, hydropower, and irrigation projects throughout the 17 western states.

We hope you enjoy this issue of Irrigation Leader and find information or a contact that may be helpful to you.

Thank you for your continued support of our magazine.

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.

Are you Advertising in Irrigation Leader?

Do you have a product or service of value to the agricultural producer or water provider communities?

Are you a leader in your field? If so, we invite you to advertise in Irrigation Leader magazine.

Published 10 times a year, Irrigation Leader is a forum for water professionals and policymakers to discuss key issues and challenges of the day.

Irrigation Leader is distributed to more than 10,000 agricultural water professionals, including irrigation district managers and boards of directors in the 17 western states, Bureau of Reclamation officials, members of Congress and committee staff, and irrigation-associated businesses.

For more information, please contact Kip Polly at

(308) 350-8183 or Kip.Polly@waterstrategies.com 2

Irrigation Leader

MAY 2016

C O N T E N T S 2 Forward-Thinking Innovators

VOLUME 7

ISSUE 5

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for July/August and November/December by Water Strategies LLC 4 E Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 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. For more information, please contact John Crotty at (202) 698-0690 or john.crotty@waterstrategies.com.

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 © 2016 Water Strategies LLC. Irrigation Leader relies on 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: Peter Rietkerk, general manager of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, near the pump station at the district’s reservoir for its Irrigation Enhancement Project.

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

4 Water Conservation and Delivery

Efficiency in the Central Valley: A Conversation With Peter Rietkerk of South San Joaquin Irrigation District

10 Dialing Back Duplicative Pesticides

Regulation

By Senator Mike Crapo

12 Developing a Western Water Project:

Putting a Public-Private Partnership Into Action

By Mike Schwisow

14 Food Safety Modernization Act –

What’s Next?

By Kate Woods

18 The Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Forum

By Don Barnett

DISTRICT FOCUS

24 Westlands Water District

By Johnny Amaral

BUSINESS LEADERS

30 Jeff Welsh of Alligare THE INNOVATORS

32 Taking the Weld Out of the Joint 36 Canal Protection at the Cellular Level

3

Water Conservation and Delivery Efficiency in the Central Valley: A Conversation With Peter Rietkerk

of South San Joaquin Irrigation District

F

ormed in 1909, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) delivers water to 56,000 irrigated acres and 187,000 municipal residents across three cities—Escalon, Manteca, and Ripon—in California’s San Joaquin Valley. SSJID has a diverse operational portfolio: agricultural water delivery, wholesale municipal water treatment and distribution, and in-house solar. All those components contribute to serving SSJID constituents as effectively and efficiently as possible in the provision of safe, reliable water supplies to farmers and families.

SSJID farmers primarily grow almonds, historically a staple of the region, as well as pistachios, walnuts, fruit, fresh market produce, and forage crops. SSJID’s gravity-flow delivery system moves water off the Stanislaus River through a series of canals, open channels, pipelines, and tunnels from the Sierra Nevada to the Central Valley floor, where farmers irrigate by flood, drip, and sprinkler.

SSJID is a district at the nexus of water and power delivery and innovation. Developed by SSJID in conjunction with the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca, and Tracy, the Nick C. DeGroot Water Treatment Plant processes 40 million gallons of water for use by local communities. SSJID operates a 1.4-megawatt solar farm to offset the power used by the treatment plant, passing on the savings to participating customers. SSJID and its neighbor to the east, the Oakdale Irrigation District, share water rights on the Stanislaus River and run the Tri-Dam Project to provide water storage and hydropower. The two districts constructed and operate the Beardsley, Donnells, and Tulloch Reservoirs. SSJID constructed and operates Woodward Reservoir in Stanislaus County for the primary purpose of water storage and supplies for its water treatment plant nearby. Stanislaus County manages Woodward Reservoir’s recreational facilities.

At the helm of SSJID is Peter Rietkerk. Prior to joining SSJID, Mr. Rietkerk managed Patterson Irrigation District on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Irrigation Leader’s 4

editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Mr. Rietkerk about delivering water in times of drought, maximizing water deliveries, and his long-term goals for the district.

Kris Polly: How did you get into the irrigation business?

Peter Rietkerk: I grew up on a family farm in Corcoran, California, between Fresno and Bakersfield.

In the 1980s and 1990s, we grew row crops: cotton, corn, alfalfa, and other winter forage crops. My dad, who is still farming, slowly converted his acreage to permanent crops.

So the crop mix has changed substantially over the years, and we now grow pistachios, almonds, and olives.

I was always interested in the irrigation side of agriculture and the movement of water from source to farm. We used pumps to convey water for flood irrigation, and as my dad converted to permanent crops, he installed drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems. It was a no-brainer from his perspective because you use less water more effectively, and it provides more precision for water and crop management decisions for the permanent crops he was planting.

Kris Polly: Drought has defined California over the past few years. What were conditions like last year?

Peter Rietkerk: SSJID and our sister district, Oakdale Irrigation District, receive water via shared water rights from the Stanislaus River through New Melones Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The two districts built the original Melones Dam and turned it over to Reclamation in the 1960s, which then increased the size of the reservoir and it was renamed New Melones Reservoir. After three years of well-below-average precipitation and snowpack in the Irrigation Leader

watershed, New Melones storage dropped considerably in 2015. At the beginning of the season, our modeling suggested that the reservoir could go nearly dry. However, through the collective conservation efforts of our growers and cities, and in coordination with Reclamation, we were able to successfully execute a plan that averted disaster.

participate in a program to transfer their surface water allotment to any other grower within the district, with our approval.

Kris Polly: How did education factor into the district’s conservation efforts?

Kris Polly: How did the district manage that challenge?

Peter Rietkerk: The drought opened up everyone’s eyes and ears to the need to conserve. Last year was the first year in a long period of time—due to the district’s strong and very senior water rights on the Stanislaus River—that we had to consider any allocation or inch limits for our growers. SSJID implemented a 36-inch limit to address significant concerns about water availability for our growers and to promote conservation. We also had to equally reduce water supplies to the cities that purchase our wholesale treated water to comply with provisions in our treatment plant operating agreement.

Additional drought measures were put in place to provide flexibility for our landowners and growers to meet that 36-inch limit. For example, we allowed landowners to take their allocation and apply it across all their district landholdings however they wished. It gave them the option to choose a cropping pattern that would keep them within the limit.

We also instituted two private water transfer programs.

Growers with wells could pump groundwater into our facilities in one location and use it in another location within the district. The pumped water in our canals could be for the growers' own use, or they could transfer that water to their neighbor. Growers were also able to

Peter Rietkerk: There was a lot of education that came with the inch limitations. I think we really shined by providing the tools and staff necessary to address grower questions. We dedicated staff to a drought task force charged with performing irrigation audits and flow verification to help growers understand what a 36-inch allocation really meant. We provided education on historical water use and recommended practices that they could employ to irrigate more efficiently. We developed an online tool that allowed them to look at their historical irrigation events and compare them to the current allocations. We also mailed a series of emergency drought bulletins to growers throughout the season, updating them on any new programs we had to offer and keeping them informed of water supply issues as needed. These communication tools proved critical to helping our growers successfully get through the drought last year.

We purchased portable flow meters for our staff, improved on-farm delivery measurement, and met with growers in the field to discuss water usage. We also worked with our staff to tighten up inefficiencies in our own system and accelerated a flow monitoring program aimed at measuring and reducing operational spills in our system.

The outreach was very well received. As a district, we fell below our 36-inch allocation. Our growers really came through.

New Melones Reservoir is the largest source of storage for South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation Districts. Watermark lines reveal not only the depths of last year’s drought but also droughts from previous years.

Irrigation Leader

5

Kris Polly: SSJID’s conservation efforts go beyond drought response programs. Please describe the district’s Irrigation Enhancement Project.

Peter Rietkerk: We have a unique area in our district—3,300 acres—in which we provide pressurized water service like a municipal system in some respects.

Growers can connect their filter stations and highefficiency irrigation systems directly to that pipeline network, and we deliver pressurized water at 55 pounds per square inch to the field, without the need for growers to boost their water to an adequate pressure.

Growers use an online web portal via tablet, smartphone, or computer to schedule irrigation as little as 36 hours ahead of time. When the time comes, an automated turnout opens and pressurized deliveries commence automatically. The web portal also includes weather and soil moisture data to assist growers with their irrigation scheduling decisions.

This project was developed as a pilot program to collect operational spills and improve irrigation service in a section of the district with mostly permanent crops. The district had some difficulty in delivering water reliably in the past because the area is at the end of a long conveyance system and providing water consistently was difficult. This inconsistency led to excessive operational spills and caused some growers to rely more heavily on groundwater as a secondary, more consistent source of supply.

Over time, these growers were experiencing diminishing yields and the orchards themselves did not look as good because the groundwater quality was relatively poor. So the growers wanted to return to surface supplies. Rather than replace and upgrade gravity conveyance to provide sufficient capacity, we developed this concept of pressurized irrigation service. The district is now providing pressurized water using efficient pumps on variable frequency drives, which allows for water to be pressurized at relatively low cost. Now, growers can receive high-quality surface water with much more flexibility in scheduling and reliability, which has resulted in higher yields.

This project certainly promotes high-efficiency irrigation systems and reduces system losses. Growers can schedule their deliveries to meter the exact amount of water their crop needs without drainage. The district also has reduced seepage, evaporation, and operation spills in our conveyance system. Collectively, this has resulted in a savings of about 12,500 acre-feet annually.

The original concept was to build a pilot project to seek a knowledge base and an understanding of the pros and cons of this cutting-edge technology and new method of irrigation delivery. After it was successfully constructed and operated, we embarked on a feasibility study to take that concept and expand it throughout the district’s service area. We are reviewing that feasibility study now and working with our consultants to come up with recommendations for the board.

Kris Polly: In what ways is the rest of your system automated?

Peter Rietkerk: We have automated drop structures along our main canal system to maintain a constant level regardless of flow rate and automated lateral head gates off the main canal. These systems are operated and monitored using an intricate SCADA system. Our SCADA and radio network is robust and reaches throughout the district, providing us with the opportunity to implement our on-farm flow measurement program as well. As growers install new pressurized systems and flow meters, the district is installing remote telemetry units to feed real-time information to the district for monitoring and billing purposes. Flow measurement is required by the state, but is also necessary for us to automate and operate our distribution system.

We also use flow measurement to assist us in our water balances. SSJID has a number of sites that drain out of our system to a creek or natural waterway. SCADA and flow measurement enables us to track those system inefficiencies. It has been a great asset in collecting data to assist us in making operational decisions and system improvements.

An SSJID farmer and his wife order water from the Irrigation Enhancement Project with their smart tablet.

6

Kris Polly: What are the key challenges ahead for the district?

Irrigation Leader

Peter Rietkerk: There are ongoing discussions regarding water quality and the delta. The Stanislaus River is a tributary to the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. The California Water Resources Control Board is updating its Water Quality Control Plan for the delta based on a 2012 proposal that called for significant amounts of water to be released out of the watershed, which would have a detrimental effect on water rights holders and surface water supplies for local cities and agriculture. If implemented, it would put into question the water supply certainty that we have had for years.

On top of that, the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act will be a challenge. We use surface water, which is the most effective available tool to manage groundwater conditions. SSJID’s service area has a positive groundwater balance because of imported surface deliveries to the tune of 90,000 acre-feet annually. That is huge when you consider that SSJID falls within a subbasin that is designated by the state as critically overdrafted. We are working with other districts in the basin and with our local county to figure out how we will coordinate to meet this new requirement.

San Joaquin County has done a great job of creating a forum for water interests to coordinate on groundwater issues through a joint powers agreement specific to groundwater management within our local subbasin. By June 2017, all the agencies within the subbasin are required to clearly define and approve boundaries for groundwater sustainability, with some understanding of how those agencies will coordinate with their neighbors.

Kris Polly: What are your long-term goals for the district?

Peter Rietkerk: The district has a great reputation for using innovative technologies and ideas to address a multitude of

Donnells Dam, the Tri-Dam Project’s highest reservoir on the middle fork of the Stanislaus River. The Tri-Dam is a series of reservoirs, dams, and powerhouses that generates hydropower for South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation Districts.

Irrigation Leader

challenging issues. There are a couple of initiatives we are developing. We are looking at how to expand the Irrigation Enhancement Project districtwide and at other distribution system alternatives that will provide more flexibility for surface water deliveries in the district. We will continue to look for opportunities to work within the district and with regional interests to achieve local groundwater sustainability.

We are also involved in an effort to become the local retail electric provider for our service territory of Escalon, Manteca, and Ripon. It has been a long process—we filed our first application back in 2005 with the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission for approval to move forward with the next steps to purchase and operate the local distribution system currently owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). We were pleased that, after many years, we earned the commission’s approval in 2014. Our desire is to invest some of the income we have reserved from the sale of wholesale hydropower through our partnership in the Tri-Dam Project for the good of our entire community. We are currently going through the subsequent legal phases of the project and continue to be very focused on succeeding in becoming the public power provider for current PG&E customers in our area. We are committed to saving the local ratepayers 15 percent from PG&E’s electric rates at the time we take over, which will result in millions of dollars in economic benefits for our region.

The forefathers of the district were forwardthinking innovators—implementing storage, hydropower, and water conveyance projects that have served the local area well for over 100 years.

The district’s hydropower assets on the Stanislaus provide an opportunity to extend district services and economic benefits not only for our agricultural customers but also for our local urban population by providing lower-cost, locally owned, retail electric service, which allows for local control and improved customer service.

We continue to follow the district’s guiding principle, documented in its 1919 rules and regulations, which is to “carry on the business of the District in a businesslike and economical manner . . . to secure the greatest good to the greatest number.” By adhering to that principle, we plan to continue to implement innovative strategies for the delivery of water and electric resources for the benefit of our region.

7

ADVERTISEMENT

Dialing Back Duplicative Pesticides Regulation

By Senator Mike Crapo

e must have clean water. This reality may be most clear to water users, who include the farmers and ranchers who depend on clean water to produce the food on their own family’s plates and the plates of consumers around the world. Overloading land and resource stewards with paperwork is not the way to achieve this goal. Bipartisan legislation I introduced and on which I am working with my colleagues in Congress to advance would dial back duplicative and costly regulations associated with the federal regulation of pesticides.

For more than 30 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a comprehensive regulatory structure for pesticide applications under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA governs the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides, with the goal of protecting human health and the environment. The statute requires pesticides to be evaluated (undergoing more than 100 tests) and registered with EPA. Users must comply with agency-approved, uniform labeling standards.

In testimony before Congress in 2011, then-Director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs Dr. Steven Bradbury explained EPA’s intensive regulation of pesticides under FIFRA to protect our nation’s waterways. As he characterized the process, “EPA regulations establish a rigorous battery of tests necessary to gain approval for a pesticide.” He stated that these tests provide detailed information on where and how the pesticide will be used; human health toxicity; the fate of the pesticide in the aquatic and terrestrial environments; and toxicity in broad categories of wildlife and plants. Further, he testified that EPA uses these data to develop detailed risk assessments for every use of each pesticide and uses peer-reviewed procedures to analyze the data used to produce the risk assessments.

Dr. Bradbury also testified that “EPA uses its full regulatory authority to ensure pesticides do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment” and outlined the methods EPA already had to address the agency’s concerns about the risks arising from pesticides in water. These included requiring a reduction in application frequency, a prohibition on certain application methods, the establishment of no-spray buffer zones around waterbodies, a requirement that limits use to only trained and certified applicators, or other restrictions. Additionally, as part of the required reexamination of previously approved pesticides, EPA reported that it evaluated 613 different pesticide active

W

10

ingredients or active ingredient groups from 1988 to 2008, canceled all products containing 229 different pesticide active ingredients, and imposed many changes on the ways that most of the other 384 pesticide active ingredients are used.

Unfortunately, despite the broad authority EPA already had and the extensive federal regulatory framework in place, a 2009 court decision forced the agency to also begin requiring Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for certain applications of pesticides in or near water. This was despite the fact EPA had long held that FIFRAcompliant pesticide applications did not classify as discharges of pollutants into waterways and therefore were not subject to the permitting requirements of the CWA. The court decision upended the agency’s interpretation of the two statutes and imposed an added layer of regulation and compliance costs, especially on states that oversee their own permitting programs, without additional environmental benefits. This duplicative regulatory requirement went into effect in 2011.

As a result of this dual regulation, EPA estimated that an additional 365,000 pesticide users—including farmers, Irrigation Leader

ranchers, state agencies, cities, counties, mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, and forest managers that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually—are required to obtain CWA permits. This is nearly double the number of entities previously subjected to permitting requirements, costing more than $50 million a year. In addition to the added compliance costs, the extra permitting requirement exposes regulated entities to increased litigation risks.

Pesticides are a tool utilized by property owners and land and wildlife managers to combat invasive species; manage vegetation; and promote healthy forests, rangelands, and waterways that provide habitat for fish and wildlife. EPA has even recognized pesticides' importance, stating, “When used properly, pesticides provide significant benefits to society, such as controlling disease causing organisms, protecting the environment from invasive species, and fostering a safe and abundant food supply.”

Unfortunately, the negative impacts of duplicative regulations affecting pesticide users are felt nationwide, and many of the examples we have seen in Idaho are playing out across the country. That is why Idahoans have been invited to share their common-sense solutions as Congress has debated this issue. Representing both the Idaho Water Users Association, Inc., and the National Water Resources Association, Norm Semanko, executive director and general counsel of the Idaho Water Users Association, explained the reach of this issue. He testified before a House Subcommittee that “western agricultural water users regularly apply aquatic herbicides, in accordance with FIFRA-approved methodologies, to keep their water delivery systems clear and free from aquatic weeds. The use of aquatic herbicides provides for the efficient delivery of water, avoids flooding, promotes water conservation, and helps avoid water quality problems associated with other methods of aquatic weed control.” He described the

Irrigation Leader

large scope of those directly affected by EPA’s additional regulation, which includes those “responsible for irrigating millions of acres of farmland, as well as residential subdivisions, parks, schools, yards, and other irrigated lands throughout the West.”

S. 1500, the Sensible Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), which I introduced with fellow Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), seeks to clarify congressional intent of the federal regulation of pesticides and codify longstanding interpretation of regulatory statutes. Nineteen fellow senators from both sides of the aisle joined us in introducing and co-sponsoring the measure. SEPA clarifies that CWA permits are not required for FIFRA‑compliant pesticide applications in or near water. The bill also requires EPA to report to Congress on whether the FIFRA process can be improved to better protect human health and the environment. Last August, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, passed this legislation by voice vote. Work continues to see this legislation, which will lift an additional layer of needless overregulation, through to enactment.

We do not need an additional layer of excessive red tape that makes it harder to produce and that adds no additional environmental benefits. Eliminating redundant regulatory burdens will free up time and resources for farmers, irrigators, forest owners, mosquito abatement districts, and land and wildlife managers to do their jobs and execute on the ground management and stewardship objectives that will benefit all our communities. I will continue to work for approval of this legislation as we continue to push back against the inappropriate regulatory expansion of the CWA. Senator Mike Crapo is the senior senator from the state of Idaho.

11

Developing a Western Water Project: Putting a Public-Private Partnership Into Action

By Mike Schwisow

P

roponents of the Odessa Ground Water Replacement Program (OGWRP), which is within Washington State’s federal Columbia Basin Project (CBP), are seeking additional public investment.

The replacement program is now in the implementation phase. The initial funding came from Washington State and the federal government. Both have a vested interest in replacing groundwater withdrawals from a depleted aquifer with Columbia River surface water already allocated for irrigation in the basin.

Now, landowner investment begins as pipeline water distribution systems are developed. The original plan called for a public-private partnership with public funding of program studies and an initial expansion of canal capacity necessary to serve all the distribution pipelines along the CBP’s East Low Canal. Landowners fund repayment of bonds issued by the local irrigation district for development of the pipeline distribution systems.

Proponents are seeking the final $20 million necessary to complete the East Low Canal expansion. Without the investment, landowners would have to fund canal expansion in addition to the distribution systems, putting repayment costs beyond the reach of many.

Ten years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the

Washington Department of Ecology began work on the Odessa Subarea Special Study. It was an ambitious effort to find a solution to the critical decline in the groundwater aquifer in a portion of the CBP service area. The looming environmental and economic disaster began in the late 1960s when Washington State issued deep well permits to irrigators in anticipation of continued development of the CBP. But in the mid-1980s, after water supply facilities had been built for nearly 680,000 of the 1,029,000 acres authorized by Congress, development stopped. Deep wells that irrigate 102,000 acres in the area waiting for CBP water supplies continued to pump to the point that well failures are now common. Growers have drilled wells over 2,000 feet in many cases to tap bad water as they struggle to keep afloat.

The study partners, along with Reclamation’s operating partner, the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID), had a solution in mind from the beginning: replace the deep wells with CBP water supplies through the existing infrastructure. At the beginning, an agreement was reached to focus only on groundwater replacement on an acre-for-acre basis. Neither the state government nor the federal government was willing to support irrigated acreage expansion, but both could get behind the idea of preserving the existing irrigated economy that produced crops valued at over $360 million a year and supporting

Construction of the Lind Coulee Siphon.

12

Irrigation Leader

3,600 jobs. They also recognized the need to preserve the remaining groundwater for local communities that had no other options for domestic water.

Development of western water projects is never easy. Compounded with the additional complexity of Reclamation project constraints, they can seem unattainable at times. But the partners and their nongovernment organization advocate, the Columbia Basin Development League, persevered until a record of decision identifying a feasible preferred alternative was signed by Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Director Lorri Lee in April 2013. Along the way, significant hurdles had to be overcome. Water rights sufficient to irrigate 87,700 acres were secured, including a trip to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for one of them. After engaging in an Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries on additional Columbia River withdrawals, the Department of Ecology is funding a $1 million chum salmon habitat mitigation project.

Being in the right place at the right time never hurts, and the program was far enough along to have shovelready East Low Canal modifications when Reclamation secured funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. ECBID constructed two 18-foot-diameter concrete siphons over 1¾ miles in length at a cost of $36 million, removing the first bottleneck in the expansion effort. Landowners ultimately will have to repay this reimbursable federal expenditure.

Washington State moved OGWRP implementation into gear when the legislature, with the governor’s support, provided a $26 million grant to the ECBID for expansion of East Low Canal. The effort focused on earthwork to widen the canal and the next two siphons down the line.

Reclamation provided design and contract support, but ECBID achieved cost savings by doing the excavation work with its own crews and managing the siphon construction, which was completed on time and under budget. The state’s contribution to date on the program is nearly $75 million, which acknowledges the program’s stake in maintaining the economy and water supplies for domestic uses.

ECBID also brought on extra staff to oversee the effort and to design the pipeline distribution systems. The ECBID board of directors identified the initial system to be constructed in a section of the East Low Canal that had recently been fully expanded. The design process got underway, working directly with eligible landowners who have groundwater rights to exchange for CBP water supplies. Work included route surveys, canal-side pump station design, archeological and environmental surveys, and coordination with landowners on delivery points Irrigation Leader

Another view of the siphon construction.

necessary to meet landowner needs.

The ECBID board determined to stay with the normalized or uniform cost approach used in the development of the rest of the CBP. All landowners served

by ECBID-constructed distribution systems will pay the same cost per acre. The board also set a cap on the total construction cost repayment it would allow. This was done to let landowners in this first system, which is one of the least expensive, know what their ultimate cost per acre may be when all of the distribution systems are completed.

The remaining $20 million in costs for the East Low Canal expansion have been incorporated into the cost of the distribution systems because a source of funding has not been identified. Water service contracts have been offered to the initial system landowners with mixed results. Some have taken the contracts, but others say the potential ultimate cost is beyond their reach. Most landowners have assured ECBID they want the water, but every farm has a different financial structure. Not everyone can make it work at the current price. Overall, the distribution systems are estimated to cost about $178 million, which is roughly 71 percent of the total OGWRP construction cost estimate.

The goal of saving the aquifer for domestic use and maintaining the economy cannot fully be met without landowner participation and additional state or federal investment. Landowners are willing to repay, but they cannot afford to lose the farm in the process.

Consequently, efforts continue to seek funding to complete canal expansion and bring landowner costs down. Additional funding, coupled with landowner participation, will help ensure that groundwater replacement water reaches the maximum amount of acres.

Mike Schwisow is the director of government relations for the Columbia Basin Development League. You can reach Mr. Schwisow at MSchwisow@aol.com.

13

Food Safety Modernization Act: What’s Next?

By Kate Woods

C

ongress and President Obama completely changed the federal government’s approach to food safety when the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) became law in 2011.

In particular, FSMA gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—an agency with next to no experience in agriculture—the authority to regulate on-farm practices for the first time ever.

Six and a half years later, this agency has released six of the seven regulations to implement the law, including the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, (known as the Produce Safety rule), which applies to commercial growers of produce the agency believes could be consumed raw.

Such produce ranges from apples in Washington to tomatoes in Florida and excludes products like potatoes and horseradish. Keep in mind that the FDA has a specific list of exempt products—it is not up to the interpretation of the grower.

The most prescriptive, costly, and confusing section of the Produce Safety rule deals with water quality. The first question to consider is, what water does the rule actually cover? The rule covers agricultural water, which it defines as any water that “is intended to, or likely to, contact the harvestable portion of the [fruit], or food contact surfaces.” In the case of apples, pears, and cherries, this could mean water used for anything from overhead cooling to mixing pesticides or washing harvest containers. It would not cover ground sprinklers or drip lines—as long as you can reasonably prove that this water is not likely to touch the fruit.

What does the rule require? First of all, growers are required to inspect all agricultural water systems to the extent they are under the grower’s control at least once annually (as close to the beginning of the growing season as possible) to “identify conditions that are reasonably likely to introduce known or reasonably foreseeable hazards” onto produce or food contact surfaces. The FDA has emphasized that it does not expect growers to be able to control everything that happens to their water, but it expects growers to know and document, for example, if there is a dairy upwind or a maintenance project on the canal that has the potential to contaminate the water supply.

14

The rule also requires that agricultural water meet a certain quality threshold. For agricultural water used during or after harvest, the rule sets a level of no detectable E. coli. Agricultural water used during the growing season must meet a geometric mean of 126 colony forming units per 100 milliliters or less, and a statistical threshold value of 410 colony forming units per 100 milliliters or less, of generic E. coli.

So what are growers actually required to do, and when? The initial compliance date for the rule is January 26, 2018, with an additional two years to comply with the water quality provisions.

More time is given for farms with annual sales of less than $500,000.

However, this doesn’t give growers as much leeway as it initially appears. By the date of compliance, growers using surface water (including all irrigation water not coming from a well or municipal system, regardless of whether it is in an open canal or piped system) must have an established microbial water quality profile made up of 20 tests conducted at or near harvest on each water source over a period of two to four years.

If growers wish to take advantage of the full four years the rule provides, then these tests need to begin this year. For cherry growers in the Pacific Northwest, this means testing would need to begin in May or potentially June for the later varieties.

Irrigation Leader

Once the microbial water quality profile is established, growers will be required to conduct five tests annually on each water source to create a rolling dataset in which the oldest data are replaced each year with the newest data.

Options are provided in the event that a test comes in above the stated threshold, including a die-off period of a half log reduction per day for a maximum of four days between the last day of irrigation and harvest.

There are still a lot of questions about what this means at the farm level. For example, how does the FDA define each water source? Does the grower need to test at each diversion point, or can the grower take one sample from a canal that supplies several orchards or fields? Although the rule appears to allow irrigation districts to conduct the tests or for growers to pool testing data with their neighbors in some cases, when is this allowed?

Unfortunately, the FDA has not been forthcoming in its answers. While guidance has been promised on water sampling, it has not yet been provided. The release of curriculum for the training required under the rule has been delayed until September at the earliest, and at least in the case of the tree-fruit industry, questions submitted to the agency’s Technical Assistance Network have mostly remained unanswered; the few responses that have been received were inadequate.

The Northwest Horticultural Council has raised these issues with the FDA directly, as well as with members of Congress charged with the FDA's oversight and funding. Although the FDA has acknowledged the produce industry’s concerns, there have been no signs that curricula will be made available earlier than September (with additional time being necessary to train the trainers); further, we have received no update yet on when additional guidance or more fruitful answers through the Technical Assistance Network will be made available.

Now why should irrigation districts care about these requirements, or the lack of direction on how to implement them? While the law places the burden of documenting water sampling results for their farms on growers, it does not dictate who actually must conduct the sampling, and many growers are already looking to their irrigation districts to perform this service. It will be up to each district to decide what role it will play in FSMA implementation, but at the very least, districts should be aware that growers will soon be required by federal law to take a more active role in considering and documenting the factors affecting their water quality, Irrigation Leader

both on their own property and upstream.

So what is the next step? Growers are currently faced with the decision to move forward with water sampling (either on their own or through their irrigation districts)—making their best guess at interpreting the FDA’s expectations and risking the agency saying at a later date that the tests are invalid—or waiting, which will mean condensing these costly tests into a shorter window of time.

While the FDA remains silent on the practical question of how to turn the regulatory language regarding water sampling into understandable practices that can be implemented on the farm, we know that the agency is getting much of the data it is using to develop guidance from a group of scientists at the Western Center for Food Safety (WCFS), housed at the University of California– Davis. The FDA has funded WCFS scientists, including Dr. Rob Atwill and his lab, to conduct research, outreach, and education to enhance the “FDA’s implementation of the prevention oriented activities outlined in FSMA.” This has included a significant amount of work on water sampling.

To ensure that our growers have the best information available, the Washington State Tree Fruit Association, in collaboration with the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission and the Northwest Horticultural Council, brought Ron Bond, Melissa Partyka, and Laboratory Manager Jennifer Chase from WCFS to Washington State during the week of May 16 to conduct a series of FSMA water quality testing demonstration workshops. Two were offered for tree fruit industry food safety specialists and one to interested irrigation districts, laboratories, and other supporting organizations that will be assisting growers with meeting this regulatory requirement.

While there is no guarantee that the FDA’s guidance will exactly mirror what Dr. Atwill’s lab has been working on, since these scientists are providing the agency with the data used to make these decisions, they have some of the best information currently available on the FDA’s expectations.

For more information on the Western Center for Food Safety, visit wcfs.ucdavis.edu.

Kate Woods is the vice president of the Northwest Horticultural Council, which works on national and international policy issues affecting tree fruit growers and shippers in the Pacific Northwest.

You can reach Ms. Woods at woods@nwhort.org.

15

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

“IWS provided a debris management system for our project that met our expectations for equipment performance. They have been very responsive when handling issues during commissioning and are continuing to provide great service during the warranty period.”

- Alan W. Hansten P.E Manager North Side Energy Canal Co., Ltd. CONTACT RICH GARGAN (661) 979-1815 iwsrich@sbcglobal.net

CHRIS GARGAN (661) 979-7206 iwschris@sbcglobal.net

JOEL IRVING (310) 614-4681 iwsjoel@sbcglobal.net

International Water Screens 11007 Ainswick Dr. Bakersfield CA 93311 w: internationalwaterscreens.com Phone: (661)-746-7959

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program

By Don Barnett

F

rom its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River flows more than 1,400 miles south and west before it discharges into the Gulf of California. Along the way, the river picks up and dissolves large amounts of salts, which translates into nearly 10 million tons of total dissolved salts historically moving downriver annually.

With salt concentrations ranging from 50 milligrams per liter in the Colorado River headwaters to nearly 850 milligrams per liter as the river crosses into Mexico, the total dissolved solids in the river create environmental and economic damages to agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational, and environmental water users.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the damage inflicted by high concentrations of salt in the Colorado River on water users is more than $380 million annually.

Cause and Effect

High salinity concentrations in the Colorado River basin are attributable to both natural and man-made causes. Sixty-two percent of the river’s salt load comes from natural sources. The erosion and weathering of saline sediments, deposited in prehistoric times, are a natural cause of high salt concentrations. Irrigation, mining, industrial, and municipal uses of the river water contribute the remainder of the high concentrations.

Irrigated agriculture accounts for 75 percent of water use in the Colorado River basin and much of the manmade increases to river salinity. Excess water applied to agricultural fields percolates, dissolves salts in the soil, mixes with groundwater, and carries those salts to the river. Municipal, industrial, and mining account for the remaining 25 percent of water use in the basin and further add to or concentrate the salts in the river.

High salt concentrations have deleterious effects on agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses alike. Many crops do not respond well to high salinity concentrations, which reduce yields. Municipal providers have to treat water with high concentrations of total dissolved solids to levels safe for consumption. Both agricultural and municipal providers bear the cost of corrosion on pumps, pipes, and other equipment necessary for the safe delivery of water.

A Collaborative Response

Back in the early 1970s, increasing Colorado River salinity concentrations and legislative movement on what would become the Clean Water Act prompted the Colorado River basin states to come together to create

18

Putting a ditch into pipe, funded under Reclamation’s Basinwide Program.

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum for the specific purpose creating a coordinated effort to reduce salt loads in the river.

With the support of the forum, Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. The act created a water quality program to address salinity through the construction of salinity control units and encouragement of on-farm best management practices.

The act was later amended to include a basinwide program to fund the improvement of off-farm irrigation delivery systems and provided for the implementation of on-farm irrigation improvements through U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.

Program Implementation

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is implemented across different federal and state platforms in conjunction with individual water users. From the adoption of on-farm practices to water infrastructure improvements, the program seeks to reduce the amount of salt that reaches the river.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Basinwide Program is a grant program that funds water efficiency projects, such as lining canals or putting ditches into pipe.

Reduced seepage from canals and laterals or reduced Irrigation Leader

deep percolation from farm fields decreases the amount of dissolved salt that seeps into the Colorado River and its tributaries.

The salinity mitigation activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are implemented through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

The NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to agricultural producers to help improve irrigation efficiency through the installation of pressurized irrigation pipelines, sprinkler irrigation systems, and drip irrigation systems.

The NRCS also provides training in best management practices to reduce runoff and salt loading.

The salt mitigation program in the Bureau of Land Management, which manages a significant amount of public lands within the Colorado River basin, focuses on controlling nonpoint sources of salt contributions through minimizing soil erosion.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 requires the basin states to cost share 30 percent of total Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program costs.

This cost share is implemented through the Basin States Program (BSP) and includes salinity control activities similar to those implemented by Reclamation and the

A well head at the salinity control project in Paradox Valley.

NRCS. The BSP is funded with levies assessed on power generated in the basin. Reclamation administers BSP funds and enters into agreements with the NRCS for technical assistance; with other federal agencies for studies and research; and with Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to fund approved salinity control activities and projects.

Like their federal partners, the basin states are also instrumental in reducing salt loads. Working through their respective National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs, the basin states regulate municipal and industrial point source discharges of saline water. The states collectively, acting through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, adopt baseline salinity standards to help achieve program goals.

The Challenges Ahead

Salt Disposal in the Paradox Valley Paradox Valley, in west-central Colorado, was formed by the collapse of a salt dome. As the Dolores River, a tributary of the Colorado River, winds its way through the valley, it picks up as much as 200,000 tons of salt annually that then naturally flows into the Colorado. Reclamation operates the Paradox Valley Unit salinity control project to capture some of the brine—around 100,000 tons of salt per year—out of the groundwater in the valley and disposes of it more than 2.5 miles underground.

The deep-injection well is nearing the end of its useful life. Reclamation is currently investigating several possibilities for the construction of a new injection well, the construction of evaporation ponds, and other alternatives for future brine disposal.

Irrigation Leader

Reclamation models indicate a potential increase of about 80 milligrams per liter in salinity concentrations over 2014 levels at Imperial Dam by 2035 if no new salinity control measures are implemented. With that in mind, the forum is learning more about salt mobilization on rangelands and working with the Bureau of Land Management to develop more comprehensive salt mitigation. The forum continues to advocate for the effective implementation of Reclamation’s Basinwide Program and for sufficient funding to keep up with current Reclamation and NRCS needs.

Don Barnett is the executive director of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. For more information about the forum and its work, visit www.coloradoriversalinity.org.

You can reach Mr. Barnett at dbarnett@barnettwater.com or (801) 2924663.

19

ADVERTISEMENT

INDUSTRY STANDARD SINCE 1955

ECONOMICAL • DURABLE • RELIABLE

IRRIGATION WATER MEASUREMENT Mc® Propeller Flow Meter

Water Specialties Propeller Meter™

Agriculture’s Best Selling Propeller Meter for over 60 Years

Engineered to Deliver Superior Performance • Time Tested • Rugged Design • Quality Construction

• Easy to Install • Easy to Operate • Easy to Field Service

Surface Water Propeller Model Manufactured with Proven Design Features

McCrometer, Inc.

3255 W. Stetson Ave., Hemet, CA 92545 (800) 220 - 2279 | www.mccrometer.com

Surface Water Reverse Propeller Model with Debris Shedding Design

CONTACT US TODAY FOR DETAILS

McCrometer Great Plains

115 South 16th St., Aurora, NE 68818

(888) 501 - 0019 | www.mccrometergreatplains.com

Ï€ SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

WAREHOUSE ESSENTIALS

ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

COMPLETE CATALOG

1-800-295-5510 uline.com

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

Bridging the gap between idea + achievement

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

slh@lclaw-nm.com

Offices worldwide

hdrinc.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Saves Time, Saves Money, Saves Water Saves Time, Saves Money, Saves Water Saves Time, Saves Money, Saves Water eserves and restores aging valuable concrete-lined canals, piping, spillways and dams as well as meta eserves and restores aging valuable concrete-lined canals, piping, spillways and dams as well as meta Saves Time, Savesor those Money, Saves Water and wood structures made from other materials eserves and restores aging valuable concrete-lined canals, piping, spillways and dams as well as meta and wood structures or those made from other materials Preserves and restores aging valuableor concrete-lined canals, spillways and and wood structures those made from otherpiping, materials Before and After After dams as well as metal and wood structures or those made from other materials Before and After After Before and After After

Before

and

afTer

AquaLastic® has over 18 million feet of canal history has overwith history with 14+experience

AquaLastic® 18 million feet of canal years of application experience 14+ years of application

AquaLastic® has over 18 million feet of canal history with 14+ years of application experience AquaLastic® has over 18 feet of canal history with 14+ years of application experience www.fixcanal.com Telmillion 509 467 8487 for information E Mail: customerservice@fixcanal.com CaLL: for information www.fixcanal.com Tel 509 467 8487 for information E Mail: customerservice@fixcanal.com www.fixcanal.com Tel 509 467 8487 for information E Mail: customerservice@fixcanal.com www.fixcanal.com E-mail: customerservice@fixcanal.com

509-467-8487

District Focus

Westlands Water District

By Johnny Amaral

C

overing more than 600,000 acres on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United States. Our farmers grow a diverse set of crops year round. We grow everything you see in your local grocery store, including almonds, pistachios, grapes, onions, and tomatoes. This food grows on some of the most productive soil in the world. All it requires is water.

Agriculture is the economic backbone of the San Joaquin Valley. The 700 family farms in the Westlands Water District alone, which vary in size from less than 100 acres to more than 10,000 acres, generate a farmgate value of $1 billion annually. In addition, Westlands fuels an agricultural economy that employs 50,000 people directly and indirectly in valley communities.

Water Delivery in the District

Efficiency is the hallmark of our water delivery system. More than 94 percent of our land is irrigated by highly efficient and precise surface or subsurface drip. All our water is metered and measured. In fact, many of the irrigation technologies used around the world were born right here in Westlands.

24

There is no surface or canal water within the district. Everything is delivered via a closed and piped water delivery system. Westlands is unique in that we are the only water district in California with a fully enclosed, buried, and metered water delivery system.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Central Valley Project (CVP) to help alleviate reliance on groundwater pumping and to stabilize water supplies in the Central Valley. The CVP is an engineering marvel that sends water from reservoirs north of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, out the delta pumping plants, and down through the Delta– Mendota Canal to the San Luis Reservoir.

The CVP system worked perfectly for decades, installing the final part on a perfect growing machine.

All the Central Valley needed—with its Mediterranean climate and fertile soil—was water, and for a long time, the CVP delivered. But the enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in 1992 started a downward water supply spiral for people, cities, and farms in California. Bad turned to worse in the years following 1992.

In 2009, a biological opinion intended to “save” the delta smelt was implemented. Reclamation restricted or shut down use of its delta pumping plants, and our water supply has taken a hit accordingly. Over the last three years, we have had allocations of zero, zero, and 5 Irrigation Leader

percent, respectively.

As efficient as our farmers are, they still have not been able to identify a crop that can grow without water. We have had to acquire and purchase water where we can find it and move it into the district. The district has paid upward of $1,300 per acre-foot, which is not sustainable, even when commodity prices are high. We also pump groundwater. The surface water supply paralysis, however, has precipitated an overdraft of groundwater. So both pumping and water purchases come with significant financial costs.

The challenge is great: This year, more than one-third of farm fields in the district were fallowed. But Westlands farmers are adaptive and creative. Despite everything, our farmers have found a way to grow crops and make a profit.

Food, Family, and Efficiency

Tony Azevedo is one of those creative and resilient farmers. He is the third generation, on his wife’s side, to farm the land. The family, under the moniker of the Stone Land Company, grows a grocery store—everything from tomatoes, garlic, onions, cantaloupe, and pomegranates to pima cotton, pistachios, almonds, wheat, and chickpeas.

Water efficiency has been a top priority for Stone Land.

Mr. Azevedo considers efficient water use to be a critical element of his work. “This is our livelihood, and we need to be as efficient as we can.”

After furrow irrigating since the late 1940s, the family moved over to drip irrigation 15 years ago. Mr. Azevedo identified two key reasons. “One, we were able to produce a better crop yield wise and quality wise. Two, we are more efficient with our water on the amount of acres that we have. We save water anywhere from 15 to 30 percent,

depending on the crop.”

Drip system installation runs anywhere from $1,200 to $1,500 per acre, so Mr. Azevedo has successfully applied for grants to help fund the farm’s efficiency upgrades.

While the operation is 100 percent drip, Stone Land does incorporate some sprinkler irrigation for salt management and seed growth for his row crops. Using 3-inch aluminum pipe with risers, Mr. Azevedo soaks the soil for 24 hours, works and shapes it, and then installs a drip line. He then sprinkler irrigates again to establish the seed.

Twenty percent of the Stone Land ranch is dedicated to trees, so Mr. Azevedo readily challenges standard misconceptions regarding water use in the valley. “The argument against growing nuts in the valley—that it takes several gallons of water to produce a single almond or pistachio—is wrong headed. Pistachio trees are going to use 32- to 36-inches of water over 12 months, whereas row crops use the same amount of water over 4 months. The trees allow us to stretch our water longer.”

Stone Land is a big operation: 75 full-time employees on four different ranches—farms are called ranches in the valley. And there are a number of businesses—the auto parts stores, the hardware stores, and the tractor dealerships—that make Stone Land operations possible.

Mr. Azevedo understands that his business and his work ethic support the local economy. “We have some thirdgeneration employees. We take pride in what we are doing.

There are so many people involved with our operation, and a lot of people count on us to be successful.”

With that in mind, Mr. Azevedo does all that he can to support his workers and their families in the face of economic uncertainties. “Whatever the market gives us is what we get. We can’t set our own prices. . . . The market does that. The only thing that we have control of is our labor. All our employees make a good wage—they have retirement, health insurance, and uniforms. We want to help them out as much as we can. Westlands is a large irrigation district, but it is made up of families and family businesses.”

Bringing Food From One Home to Another

Tony Azevedo in one of Stone Land Company's almond orchards.

Irrigation Leader

Sarah Woolf brings a mother’s care to her farming operations. She is a second-generation farmer, growing garlic, tomatoes, and onions. “My dad and uncle started to farm in the mid-1970s, and my brother Andrew, and I run it now.” Her husband is also second-generation farmer. His family grows almonds, pistachios, onions, and tomatoes, many of which end up in Heinz ketchup.

Drip irrigation is woven into the fabric of Ms. Woolf ’s operation. “We have been 100 percent drip irrigation for many years. My husband’s family put in the first drip irrigation pilot project for Netafim back in 1974 when 25

Sarah Woolf, farmer and board director at Westlands Water District.

the company first came to California. Most of my fellow farmers in the region use drip irrigation.” Ms. Woolf appreciates her drip system’s efficient management of irrigation and inputs. “Drip creates higher yields because we are so precise with every drop of water and every drop of fertilizer.”

Ms. Woolf is committed to improving food safety and quality while meeting the demands of consumers. While her farm has historically grown conventional crops, it now grows organic tomatoes. For Ms. Woolf, “It was a marketdriven decision based on the high demand for organic products.” She has also worked to keep pesticide use to a minimum. “We grow our food as safely as possible. I bring home tomatoes and garlic straight from the field and feed my children with them. I am like every mother across the country when it comes to the safety of the food I feed my children.”

Ms. Woolf has also experienced a fundamental shift in how she makes her operational and business decisions.

“Historically, the main driver of our farming practices was the most valuable crop—what people wanted the most in the marketplace.” Now her main decisionmaking mechanism is water availability. “I decide which crops to grow based on water demand each month. From January through the spring, garlic and onions need the water. Then May through July, I manage for tomatoes. Then I go back to garlic and onion in the fall. So I make my decisions based on when I can actually get water and to keep the crop alive.”

As Ms. Woolf aptly describes it, “The federal government has struggled to balance the increasing demands of population growth and the environment with agricultural demand. Historically, agriculture provided the flexibility for the water supply system for the state in times of drought and abundance. If there were a drought, we would get a cutback; if there were an abundance of water, we would get a full water supply. More often than 26

not, agriculture received 100 percent of its water supply.

But now, there are more users—the environment and more people. Those other users get their needs met and agriculture might get whatever is left over. That is now less than 30 percent on average. It is a very inefficient and inequitable structure.”

Ms. Woolf fallows half her land due to the surface water curtailments. Scaling down production meant scaling down employment. “When we received our first significant water cutback in 2009 from the federal government, we made a decision to scale back operations dramatically. We went from 15 full-time, year-round employees to 10. Now we are at 5 year-round employees on the farm. That being said, with a more reliable water supply, we would certainly hire more people.”

From her own farm to the communities of the San Joaquin Valley, the people have suffered. Ms. Woolf sees it firsthand. “To watch what is happening to our communities is just devastating. I was just in the community of Corcoran for a meeting with a Bureau of Reclamation official about water supplies. Right across the park, there were lines around the corner for a food bank.

That is here, in the most productive food-growing region in the world.”

Despite the challenges of farming without water and its crippling effect on the communities in the valley, Ms. Woolf finds hope and spirit in the people who have helped to make her farm, and others like it, a success. “I feel pride when I see the children of the workers who have been with us over the years grow and thrive from the hard work of their parents.”

Committed to Community and Country

Since its creation in the 1960s, the farmers of Westlands Water District have strived to produce as many high-quality crops with as little water as possible.

That efficiency has contributed to an abundance of safe, quality foods at relatively low prices for families across this country. Farmers like Tony Azevedo and Sarah Woolf possess the ingenuity, integrity, and care necessary to successfully grow high-quality food in the face of everdecreasing water supplies. They are Westlands.

Johnny Amaral is the deputy general manager for external affairs for Westlands Water District. Prior to his current position, he was the chief of staff for Congressman Devin Nunes, who represents Tulare and Fresno Counties in the Central Valley.

You can reach Mr. Amaral at jamaral@westlandswater.org.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

We Are Westlands

Family farming for more than 60 years

Tony Azevedo and Family Tony has managed Stone Land Company ever since his father-in-law Bill Stone handed him the reins in 2005. The family’s hard work over the years has not only improved their land, but contributed to the local agricultural economy.

Growing more than $1 billion worth of food and fiber annually Supporting 50,000 people in communities dependent on Westlands’ agricultural economy Generating $3.5 billion in farm-related economic activities Producing 60 high-quality crops, including tomatoes, onions, melons, grapes and nuts Serving California, the United States and more than 150 countries around the world

559-224-1523

wwd.ca.gov

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Business Leader

I

Jeff Welsh of Alligare

rrigation districts dedicate a lot of time and money on weeds in the canal and on embankments. Environmental and health concerns complicate the elimination of weeds.

Many districts are familiar with Magnacide H, a watersoluble herbicide that controls submersed and floating weeds and algae in irrigation canals. The company that distributes Magnacide H is Alligare LLC, a worldwide vegetation management leader headquartered in the small town of Opelika, Alabama.

Jeff Welsh is president and chief executive office of Alligare.

He started in the vegetation management business back in 1990 after graduating from Auburn University. After working with two different industrial vegetation management (IVM) distributors and a manufacturer, Mr. Welsh, along with his business partner, started Alligare in 2002. The company has been growing ever since, expanding its portfolio and selling its products in the lower 48 states and abroad.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Mr. Welsh about the genesis of the business and how it meets the needs of today’s irrigators.

egory uccess...

Kris Polly: How did you get started in this business?

Jeff Welsh: My business partner and I had worked for various companies in IVM, which includes aquatics and irrigation. We had experience in this market. When we started the company, we recognized the need to develop new chemistries in this market and to reintroduce some of the older chemistries—in other words, the postpatent introduction of the products. That is what got us started.

Mr. Jeff Welsh at work in his office in Opelika, Alabama.

Photo courtesy of FlipFlop Foto.

a major player in IVM, but aquatics has been a big focus of ours over the last few years. Specific to the irrigation market, we have the global marketing rights for Magnacide H. Magnacide H is a wonderful piece of chemistry that we spend a lot of time on providing training and monitoring.

It breaks down nicely in the water to inert elements. It has a great environmental profile.

symbolic representation, then Opelika’s Alligare, LLC, founded in 2002, is certainly an allegory for success, representative abama/West Georgia of attracting world-class business and industry.

ntown Opelika, Alligare’s president Jeff Welsh quickly points out the importance of businesses investing in the downtown Kris Polly: Alligare works hand in hand with irrigation districtofmanagers moneyoffers. on weed management. corporate resources on an international scale, and of the resulting diversity services to thissave formula Kris Polly: What was the need that you identified in the market?

How does that fit into your business philosophy?

generics to the market. We realized that there were chemistries being used in agriculture that we felt would fit in the IVM sector. We approached several companies to introduce them to the IVM sector. The first product we sold, flumioxazin, is known as Payload for IVM and Clipper for aquatics. It really put us on the map.

placing their needs first. In terms of the irrigation market, we have two full-time people working that market who are there to do whatever the customer needs us to do. I see that number growing in the next few years. We also have a representative in Australia for Magnacide H.

Jeff Welsh: We are slowly building up our portfolio: We have just launched our Fluridone brand, also copper formulations and a stable of other products. We are

Jeff Welsh: We do a lot of training. And with Magnicide H, it is required with the use of the product.

We train every applicator each year, including in the six

sh, whose vision is shared by his wife, Dr. Hayley Welsh, DMD, “and weJeff haveWelsh: successfully competed against major multiWe are very focused on our customers. We take a lot of pride in taking care of our customers and Welsh: We were really the first guys to introduce ng personalJeffservice.”

companies that have made Lee County home, Alligare has been ranked no. 6 in the Top 50 Environmental Services plier in the industrial vegetation management, Alligare develops, markets, and sells herbicides.

autifully restored space of the historic district in downtown Opelika. The restoration of the Welsh Building was part of the Kris Polly: What kind of training does Alligare umb Construction.

Welsh supports intown revitalization and commerce and says fleeing to one of the outlying business provide?

Kris Polly: What are your top products today?

mode30of representation conveying meaning other than the literal.

Irrigation Leader

countries outside the United States where we sell the product.

Kris Polly: Based on your 26 years in the vegetation management business, what changes or trends have you seen?

Jeff Welsh: One of the biggest trends, with the introduction of postpatent chemistry, has been the exit of the major players. I see that continuing into the future.

Alligare has a very broad portfolio, and we sell directly to the irrigation market. That puts a lot of pressure on the supply chain but keeps us much closer to the customer, which is where we ultimately want to be.

When you start a business, your customers will take you down paths you were not expecting. That is what happened with Alligare.

Kris Polly: What should every irrigation district or manager know about Alligare?

Jeff Welsh: The customer is first. We are there to help our customers in any way they see fit in terms of managing their water. It is pretty simple.

It is important for the irrigation market to know who we are and what we are doing. We have a longterm plan for working with irrigators, so we are not going anywhere. For example, over the past two seasons, we have dedicated resources to an in-house Magnacide H custom application program. At this time, we have contract applicators working for us in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah. We plan to expand this offer into the irrigation market east of the Rocky Mountains in the future.

If a customer needs us to apply his Magnacide H for him, we are ready to help. With our broad product portfolio, we are working toward being able to address all of an irrigator’s weed management needs, from noxious weeds to ditch bank treatments.

Magnacide H application at Turlock Irrigation District in California.

Irrigation Leader

31

The Innovators

Taking the Weld Out of the Joint

O

ne of the great challenges in the trenchless construction market was the field weld.

Every time a casing pipe was pushed underground, the joints had to be welded. That welding amounted to additional cost and time for contractors to complete their project.

Twenty years ago, the PermalokTM Corporation, which is now owned by Northwest Pipe Company, developed a unique solution to the problem: connector joints in which the ends of two steel pipes interlock. By alleviating the cost and time of a butt weld in the field, this proprietary trenchless joint changed the way the trenchless market worked.

According to Henry Goff, vice president of sales at the Northwest Pipe Company and PermalokTM, “A crew on an eight-hour shift installing a steel pipe with 3/4-inch wall and 60-inch outer diameter casing could install 60 to 80 feet of butt-welded pipe, whereas that same crew could install 200 feet of the PermalokTM. You go faster, increasing the productivity of trenchless contractor.”

Project-Specific Solutions

The company offers products that serve casings ranging from a ¼-inch wall, 8-inch outer diameter to 2½-inch up to 156-inch outer diameter.

PermalokTM has the capability to be adapted to 2-inch-thick casings.

PermalokTM joints are tailored to project specifications. Mr. Goff explains, “Typically, trenchless contractors work with 10- to 20-foot joints. That being said, everything we do is custom.

For example, a 1,400-foot drive could be completed using 17- to 20-foot joints, or a combination of lengths to ensure the most economical and efficient installation.” However, it can go above and beyond that range, depending on the overall thickness of the pipe wall.

Culvert Applications

PermalokTM has been using its joints for culverts since Northwest Pipe took over the company.

Mr. Goff explained, “When you talk about culverts, you are really looking at railroad, road, and canal applications. PermalokTM cuts down on the welding and increases the overall speed of a culvert job, especially replacements. Culvert replacement represents an opportunity for the product to grow in the marketplace.”

32

Henry Goff, vice president of sales at the Northwest Pipe Company and PermalokTM, in front of a 60-inch outer diameter pipe with a PermalokTM joint.

A Long-term Water Delivery Solution

Mr. Goff looks at the bottom line. “Using steel pipe with PermalokTM joints brings a better cost structure to a job. The steel brings longevity to a pipeline. You are going to have a cost structure that will be stable for many years to come.”

For more information about PermalokTM, contact Henry Goff at hgoff@permalok.com.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT For more information about PermalokTM, contact Henry Goff at hgoff@permalok.com.

WHEN JOEY RETURNED FROM SERVICE IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, IT WAS OUR TURN TO SERVE HIM. The Combat Soldiers Recovery Fund gives 100% of every donation it receives to service families like Joey’s and to many more heroes that have served our country. Every dollar makes a difference; will you help thank those who have answered the call?

THEY GAVE 100% so WE GIVE 100% combatsoldiersrecoveryfund.org

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Scott’s Pump Service is privately owned and

operated and offers over 75 years of combined industry knowledge and experience in groundwater development.

Is your well short on water?

Do you have to lower your pump?

WE SPECIALIZE in irrigation well servicing

and rehabilitation.

At Scott’s Pump we can diagnose the status or situation of your well and pinpoint the cause of a problem. We use the latest technology in closed circuit video equipment to visually inspect the entire depth of the well.

When a specific problem is identified, we use mechanical and blast fracturing rehabilitation techniques to attempt to restore the water system to the highest production and efficiency levels possible.

OUR PROMISE At Scott’s Pump Service we pride ourselves in our customer-focused success and are committed to providing you with superior service and the highest quality products available. We work hard to help our customers reach their goals and achieve success.

Scott Moser, owner

CONTACT US TODAY! IMPERIAL OFFICE 171 Hwy 61 Imperial NE 69033

Phone: 308-882-7746 scottspump@gmail.com

www.scottspump.com

The Innovators

Canal Protection at the Cellular Level Canal repair has a way of straining an irrigation district’s maintenance budget. Engineers are always looking for new and innovative ways to reduce the effects of erosion on canals while maintaining structural flexibility. One such solution is a geocell system.

Geocells are structures that confine infill materials in highdensity polyethylene cells. Imagine a honeycomb full of drainage rock. Geocells are used to stabilize everything from steep slopes and shorelines to dams and canals.

ORIGINS

Back in the late 1970s, Presto Geosystems of Appleton, Wisconsin, worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, to develop the geocell. According to Bryan Wedin, chief design engineer at Presto Geosystems, the Army Corps wanted an application that could be buried on a beachhead to accommodate heavy trucks and military vehicles and serve as a temporary road on sand.

Presto took the technology and ran with it, applying it to a variety of slope protection solutions for topsoil, concrete, or aggregates. By the early 1980s, Presto introduced its geocell system, the GEOWEB. Presto geocells are now found on canal projects across the United States and around the world.

APPLYING THE GEOWEB

The GEOWEB ranges in depth from 3 to 12 inches and is manufactured in nominal widths of 8½ feet and lengths of up to 50 feet. Applicators install the GEOWEB perpendicular to a channel from one side of a downslope to the other side. Transported on a pallet

at 230 square feet per panel, the GEOWEB is unfolded, pulled down a slope, and applied a couple of sections at a time with a plastic key that connects the panels to each other. The product can be staked with 24-inch rebar or anchored with flexible tendons. The GEOWEB forms to the channel.

According to Mr. Wedin, the GEOWEB system stabilizes and protects eroding channels, improving the hydraulic performance of aggregate, riprap, and topsoil by confining them within each cell of the product. For concrete infill, the semirigid system helps to produce a flexible slab to control shrinkage and expansion.

JACKSON GULCH INLET CANAL REHAB

At elevations of 8,000 feet above sea level and temperatures ranging from zero to 90 degrees, delivering water in southwestern Colorado’s Mancos Water Conservancy District is no small feat. Over the years, Mancos has been addressing aging infrastructure on the 70-year-old project. Back in 2011, Mancos began repair on a section of canal that had lost capacity, requiring ½ mile of new concrete canal.

District Superintendent Gary Kennedy was concerned about the effect of the harsh temperatures on the concrete, stating, “The district wanted to make sure that we used an armored material that was flexible.” That flexibility was built into the project design. Mr. Kennedy found a solid match for his project design in the GEOWEB. “What we liked about the GEOWEB was that it would

Installing the GEOWEB at Mancos Water Conservancy District.

36

Irrigation Leader

hold the concrete in place and eventually fracture as tiles of the geogrid. Then you would end up with a flexible embankment of concrete tiles.”

Done over two sections and two seasons, the district went to work building flexibility into its system. Mancos reshaped the canal and covered it with layers of geomembrane and geotextile fabric. On top of that, it applied the GEOWEB with concrete on the side slopes and filled the canal bottom with rock.

Mr. Kennedy has been pleased. “It worked exactly as we thought it would.”

Irrigation Leader

CELLULAR INTEGRITY

For Mr. Wedin, the benefits of a cellular system are clear.

“The GEOWEB saves money, in both material and installation costs. In addition, starting or stopping a concrete pour is much easier. You can stop after filling up each cell. The contractors like it because on steep slopes, it eliminates uneven pours and concrete settling to the bottom of channel. The GEOWEB provides more uniformity, saving on installation time and creating a better quality pour. It also means durability and long-term performance; the cells control concrete quantities and costs with uniform cell depth and reduce the amount of the inevitable cracking of concrete.”

37

ADVERTISEMENT

MAXIMUM IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY

STARTS WITH YOUR PUMP AND WATERTRONICS Watertronics® is a leader in offering integrated pump systems solutions customized to your needs. Their pump stations and controls maintain consistent, surge-free water delivery for optimum pressure regulation thus reducing your energy costs and ensuring your irrigation system will work efficiently.

For more details, contact your local Watertronics dealer or visit www.watertronics.com.

WATERTRONICS, A LINDSAY COMPANY, PROVIDES: •

An integrated pump system engineered to save energy, water and labor

•

Complete pivot, pump and irrigation expertise

•

Systems delivered as a factory assembled and tested unit for fast installation

•

Collaboration with engineering firms

•

24-hour certified service and support

•

Full inventory of parts for minimal downtime

© 2015 Lindsay. All rights reserved. Watertronics is a registered trademark of the Lindsay Corporation.

NWRA Western Water Seminar Registration August 3-5, 2016 ~ Sun Valley Resort ~ Sun Valley, Idaho

Attendee First Name

Attendee Last Name

Attendee Organization

Attendee Address1

Address2

Attendee City

Attendee State

Attendee E-mail for survey

Attendee Zip Code

Attendee Phone Number

Please select type of registration

Please select additional and/or optional events

$625 - NWRA Member (Through July 1)

$50 Spouse/Guest Reception Ticket - August 3 only $70 spouse/Guest Reception/BBQ Ticket - August 4 only

$725 - Nonmember (Through July 1)

$115 - Spouse/Guest Registration (includes Welcome Reception (August 3) and Reception/BBQ Dinner (August 4) Save $5 over purchasing individual tickets above

$725 - NWRA Member (After July 1)

$155 Golf Single

$825 - Nonmember (After July 1)

$620 Golf Foursome Names in Golf Foursome:________________________________________ Additional Mulligans ($5 each or 5 for $20) How many? ______________

Total DUE: __________________________

Expiration Date

Account Number

*PLEASE NOTE: Breakfast, lunch and dinner (with exception of August 4 BBQ dinner), will be on your own during the seminar*

Payment Type

Check VISA Master Card American Express

Name on Card

Signature

Please fax completed form to AnnaLee Taylor at NWRA: (202) 698-0694 OR Mail to NWRA 4 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003

CVV#

Bridging the gap between idea + achievement Offices worldwide

hdrinc.com

2016 CALENDAR

May 3–6 May 20 June 13–14 June 15–17 June 22–23

June 22–24 June 27–July 1 June 29–July 1 July 11–12 July 26–27 August 3–5 August 23–25 August 24–26

Association of California Water Agencies, Spring Conference and Exhibition, Monterey, CA Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona, Annual Meeting and Water Conference, Tempe, AZ Idaho Water Users Association, Summer Water Law and Resource Issues Seminar, Sun Valley, ID Texas Water Conservation Association, Mid-Year Conference, Horseshoe Bay, TX Water Leader Workshop Sponsored by the Irrigation Leader and Municipal Water Leader magazines, Milwaukee, WI WESTCAS, Annual Conference, Santa Fe, NM ESRI, User Conference, San Diego, CA Groundwater Management Districts Association, Summer Session, Yakima, WA North Dakota Water Resources Districts, Joint Summer Meetings, Fargo, ND Kansas Water Congress, Summer Conference, Wichita, KS National Water Resources Association, Western Water Seminar, Sun Valley, ID Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Groundwater Summit, San Marcos, TX Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference and Membership Meeting, Steamboat Springs, Colorado

For more information on advertising in Irrigation Leader magazine, or if you would like to have 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.waterstrategies.com/irrigation-leader