Irrigation Leader September 2012

Volume 3 Issue 8

September 2012

Darvin Fales: Public Safety through Self-reliance: QCBID’s West Canal Repair

Tough Jobs

By Kris Polly ow many jobs have the responsibility of ensuring public safety, promoting the economic vitality of regions, managing numerous staff, and maintaining the efficient operation of expansive infrastructure, all under the direction and guidance of a relatively small board of directors? Many important positions have one or two of the above-listed responsibilities; however, few jobs that have them all.

Managing an irrigation district has all these responsibilities and more. “Most of these managers are engineers by training, but they must perform a variety of tasks far beyond engineering. Being a manager is a very tough job,” said Richard Lemargie, attorney for all three Columbia basin irrigation districts for the past 30-plus years.

This issue of Irrigation Leader shares a sampling of challenges experienced and solutions implemented primarily by managers in Washington, Nebraska, and California. Though the topics are different, self-reliance, ingenuity, and general toughness are all shared themes.

There is no instruction manual or “general manager” degree program. Training is on the job, and the old military axiom, “Good decisions come from experience and experience comes from making bad decisions,” certainly

H

applies. Managers quickly learn to ask questions of, and to share information with, other general managers. “This whole industry is based on gossip,” Tom Davis, general manager of the Yuma Count Water Users’ Association once told me. He further explained that managers often share recommendations and their experiences when they see each other at various water organization meetings.

Helping managers share information is a central mission of Irrigation Leader magazine. To that end, we have expanded from 32 to 40 pages and will promote upcoming water meetings like the Texas Water Conservation Association meeting advertised below.

Leroy Goodson, executive director of the Texas Water Conservation Association, and his very capable staff run an exceptional meeting with many opportunities for managers to interact.

Mr. Lemargie is right. Being a manager of an irrigation district is a tough job, but sharing information and experiences can make it easier.

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.

REGISTER NOW 2012 Fall conference october 24-26, 2012

crowne Plaza riverwalk Hotel, san antonio, texas The Texas Water Conservation Association Fall Conference will be held October 24-26, 2012 at the Crowne Plaza Riverwalk Hotel in San Antonio, Texas. Confirmed speakers include: Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, State Sen. Robert Duncan, State Rep. Brandon Creighton, Brigadier General Thomas Kula of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Texas Water Development Board Chairman Billy Bradford, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Executive Director and State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon.

The program will also include many technical presentations on surface and groundwater management.

For reservations call (800) 227-6963 or (210) 354-2800 Exhibitions are welcome at the Conference. In order to make proper arrangements, TWCA would appreciate receiving all registrations and/or any requests for refunds prior to Friday, October 5, 2012 in the TWCA offices. For additional forms or information visit www.twca.org.

C O N T E N T S

SEPTEMBER 2012

2 Tough Jobs

Volume 3

Issue 8

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for November/ December and July/August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Crotty, Senior Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copyeditor SUBMISSIONS: Irrigation Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions.

However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved. Submissions are returned only upon request.

ADVERTISING: Irrigation Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads. For more information on rates and placement, please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Irrigation Leader is distributed to irrigation district managers and boards of directors in the 17 western states, Bureau of Reclamation officials, members of Congress and committee staff, and advertising sponsors. For address corrections or additions, please contact our office at Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

DISCLAIMER: Irrigation Leader relies upon the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contibutor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Irrigation Leader magazine, its editors, or Water Strategies, LLC.

COVER PHOTO: Mr. Darvin Fales, General Manager of the QuincyColumbia Basin Irrigation District Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

4 Public Safety through Self Reliance:

QCBID’s West Canal Repair

10 Saving Our Dams

By Chairman Doc Hastings

12 The Value of Routine Preventative

Measures

16 The District Manager as Scientist:

Lessons from the Aquatic Herbicide Permitting Process

18 CBDL Promotes Local Financing to

Move Odessa Ahead

By Vicky Scharlau

20 Shared Resources, Shared Ideas 24 New Nebraska Revenue Option Spurs

Pipeline Project

26 Hydroelectric Project Relicensing:

A Call for Change

By Einar Maisch

Irrigated Crops: 30 Hop Farms in the Pacific Northwest

Quench the World’s Thirst for Beer

Water Law: 32 Chewing on the Chu Memo: Has the Train

(with Our Wallets) Left the Station?

By Robert S. Lynch

The Innovators: 36 Hydrokinetic Potential: Canal Power from

Hydrovolts

38 Classified Listings 3

Public Safety through Self-reliance:

QCBID’s West Canal Repair

Darvin Fales standing on a "deer ramp" included as part of the repairs to the West Canal. The ramp allows a point of escape for previously trapped animals as well as access for equipment.

T

he Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District (QCBID) is one of three independent, nonprofit, quasimunicipal corporations founded under Washington state law that hold a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to operate and maintain a portion of the Columbia Basin Project.

Located in central Washington, the 1,300-square-mile District delivers water to nearly 250,000 acres of irrigable land— transforming a veritable desert into a garden. The District, like many others, is dealing with a new economic and institutional paradigm. District managers have to develop technically creative solutions within their own capacities and budgets to proactively address safety and infrastructure issues.

Recently, when faced with an extraordinary infrastructure emergency, the QCBID addressed the problem. The Board of Directors approved the recommendation of the Quincy District manager to implement the bold plan to ensure water supplies, maintain water delivery for the growing season and, above all, protect the property of the residents of Ephrata, Washington.

Irrigation Leader’s Editor-in-Chief Kris Polly recently toured the District and spoke with Darvin Fales, QCBID SecretaryManager.

Kris Polly: Can you share with our readers some history of the West Canal and its service to the QCBID? Darvin Fales: The first irrigation water flowed through the West Canal in 1952, which was the test year 4

for Reclamation as designer and builder of the canal.

Immediately after the first irrigation season, Reclamation started to experience panel failures in certain areas—mostly in areas where the canal had been placed through broken basalt.

It’s relevant that Reclamation managed the West Canal for about 16 years after construction it before transferring it to the QCBID. With 16 years of history, Reclamation was aware of the construction deficiencies and knew what kind of problems they were facing.

Kris Polly: What was causing the canal to fail?

Darvin Fales: Most of the failures were caused by the backfill, or subgrade material, placed below the concrete panels. The material used was silty when it should have been granular, gravelly, or sandy. The silty soil becomes slick as it gets wet, causing the panels to slide downward, buckle, and protrude into the canal.

Kris Polly: What was the status of the West Canal when the operation and maintenance was transferred to the QCBID in 1968?

Darvin Fales: Even at that point, there were people within the District who felt strongly that Reclamation should correct all of the problems prior to the transfer. But at that time, Reclamation had a very strong engineering department Irrigation Leader

and was reluctant to get involved. And there were a lot of people in the District who wanted the facility transferred, so they accepted it even though they knew it wasn’t 100 percent.

Both parties were aware that the issues in the canal were far from being resolved—they just didn’t realize how far at the time.

Kris Polly: How did your District address the problems?

Darvin Fales: In the late 1990s, the seepage had only increased. On the downslope side of the West Canal in the Oasis Park area, the area had become very wet. There is a trailer park on land just to the north and adjacent to Oasis Park that was being adversely affected.

The entire canal had sunk between 6 inches and a foot.

The material beneath the canal was soft and low strength and, over time, the canal had just settled. We ultimately ended up replacing a 1,000-foot section of the canal.

Reclamation, at that juncture, was still refusing to take responsibility. Reclamation’s view was to take no remedial action. Continuing through the late 1990s, the District searched for solutions. The first thing the District did was to take about $25,000 and hire a driller to install five observation wells 40–50 feet deep along the back side of the canal. The District monitored the elevation of the water in those wells for the next few years.

Kris Polly: How did Reclamation partner with your District to work on the canal?

Darvin Fales: When I became manager in 2004, I spoke with Reclamation’s field office manager, and I recommended that we cost share and cooperate on solving this Oasis Park situation. At that point, Reclamation agreed to put some money into the project, and we decided to invest $100,000 per year, contributing equally. We agreed that once we got the seepage issues under control, we’d also look downstream to fix some of the capacity bottlenecks. Reclamation looked at its assistance as making a good-faith effort at improving a working relationship between Reclamation and the District, and we appreciated its change of position.

From 2006 to 2008, Reclamation’s hydrogeologists surveyed and analyzed the canal and recommended installing a well to lower the aquifer. We monitored the ground water levels, and the next year we installed a second well. It got better, but didn’t solve the seepage problems completely. We also repaired and replaced damaged concrete panels, applied additional crack sealant, and lined a nearby wasteway. All in all, we invested close to $300,000 in this short section of the West Canal. It improved the canal’s operation, but didn’t completely fix it.

Kris Polly: At what point was it discovered that the canal was built on an alluvial fan?

Darvin Fales: The canal is perched on top of the hillside above Ephrata, in some places elevated 50–100 feet above Main Street in Ephrata. As the canal goes out to the south Irrigation Leader

Crossing drain return to West Canal. Concrete ford is cheaper to build and maintain than a bridge or culvert.

end of town, there’s a canyon or a coulee that comes down the hill, forming a natural alluvial fan at its outfall. At the bottom of the alluvial fan is basalt covered by 10–14 feet of silty material. Gravels overlay this silt layer, which is covered by topsoil. When Reclamation built the canal, it cut through the gravel, which was dry and stable. But over time, the underlying silt became saturated and unstable—what is called low strength—and the canal began to settle.

Reclamation knew the geology of the land from the start of construction. In fact, Reclamation’s documents record the the silty layer caused by the alluvial fan. But even knowing that fact, neither Reclamation nor the QCBID could identify the exact cause of the excess seepage.

Kris Polly: How was the cause of the problem discovered?

Darvin Fales: Reclamation hired engineering firms to come out and inspect three different sections of the canal per Public Law 111-11. They were engineers from large engineering firms, but the QCBID, the local Reclamation employees, and the big engineering firms all came up with the same conclusion—that the problems were excess seepage.

The District hired its own outside engineering firm, HDR, to study downstream bottlenecks, and that’s when we really found the smoking gun.

Kris Polly: And what exactly was the smoking gun?

Darvin Fales: The smoking gun was the low-strength soil that was causing the canal to sink in the Oasis Park area.

We really found it by happenstance. We had already done a lot of work in that area—installing wells on the upslope side of the canal, replacing panels, and sealing the canal. We had stabilized the problem—it wasn’t perfect, but it didn’t appear to be getting any worse. So at this point, we were pursuing the second part of our agreement with Reclamation, which involved looking at the downstream capacity bottlenecks.

We hired HDR to come in and take a look at those, and the engineers advised us that before going too much further, they wanted to do a little bit of drilling in two areas along the canal. The first place they drilled, at mile 22, was stable as a rock. The engineers advised us that there was no danger.

5

Cable with strips of fabric to direct deer and other animals toward an additional "deer ramp" in QCBID canal system.

Neighbors have witnessed deer using this ramp to escape the canal.

But the second location, at mile 19 in Oasis Park area, on the downslope of the canal, their drill hit the low-strength soil and just sank. We knew immediately we had found the problem. And that began the whole process of replacing the section of the West Canal.

Kris Polly: It sounds like test drilling hit mud. What does that mean structurally for the canal embankment?

Darvin Fales: HDR’s geotechnical engineers ran a stability evaluation to determine the relationships between the force of water on the Oasis Park canal embankment and the forces restricting the water from breaking through. If you have a force factor of 1.5, that means the forces containing the water are some magnitude stronger than the force the water is exerting against the panels. When HDR ran the evaluation of the Oasis Park cross section, they found a force factor of 1.02 or 1.03. Essentially, if anything substantial went wrong, that canal could fail.

We immediately started shoring up the embankment. The HDR engineers recommended that we build an abutment on the toe of the embankment. We placed something like 1,000 truckloads, each with 10 yards of dirt and rock. When all was said and done, we used literally tens of thousands of yards of materials to firm up this embankment.

This activity took place in June 2010, right before the peak of our irrigation season, so shutting down the canal was not an option. We held the water level down until the abutment was complete, just to make sure that we weren’t going to cause any problems during construction. After the abutment was installed and everything seemed to be stabilized, we went ahead and delivered water like we always do. We did not feel comfortable making additional feeds that year, and we didn’t move more water than we absolutely had to.

Kris Polly: Did the abutment solve your problem?

Darvin Fales: No, this was just a stop-gap measure. We had already come up with a longer-term plan for fixing the canal over the course of two winters. We also feared that this effort was something we were going to have to fund ourselves; Reclamation at the time was unable come up with the amount of money we needed, and the loan terms were 6

not designed for a loan of this nature.

We tackled the smaller part of the project during the winter of 2010. We used $300,000 of our reserves and hired a construction company to come in and dig on the upslope side of the canal in the Oasis section. They dug all the way down to the basalt, which was about 30-feet deep, and this is where they found the low-strength soil. We really learned a lot about how to handle that material—what you could and couldn’t do with it, how much time it took to dewater, etc. We also learned the hard way that when you put heavy equipment into mucky material like that, it’s hard to extricate!

We put in an upslope toe drain during the winter of 2010 that extended for about 1,000 feet. The toe drain was an open excavation, very large and very wide at the top. The construction company brought in bulldozers, backhoes, excavators, and dump trucks. They also installed a perforated pipe at the bottom of the trench to drain the area and installed a third pump. The contractor had to build the drainpipe himself out of 12-inch PVC pipe to meet engineering specifications. He used a saw blade to cut slots in the pipe rather than round holes to prevent the silty material from plugging up the pipe.

Kris Polly: So winter 2010 was Phase I of the project; what about Phase II?

Darvin Fales: The second phase was the big one. And it was scary to think of removing a complete section of canal.

We had differing opinions on the Board as to whether we should go forward in 2011 with this phase without more investigation. We knew that we were taking a big risk. If we took out 1,000 feet of the West Canal and didn’t get it reconstructed in time, we’d be putting millions of dollars of crops at risk. So we thought this plan over long and hard.

The risks of doing it were high, but they were also high if we didn’t do it. Our HDR engineer was advising us that we needed to do it sooner rather than later. He advised that if there was an earthquake—even a small-magnitude quake— that low-strength material could squeeze out like toothpaste.

The canal wouldn’t fail dramatically, but it would slowly settle.

In that scenario, more likely than not, the water would have overtopped the embankment. And by Reclamation’s own estimates, as much as 4 feet of water could have inundated some portions of Ephrata.

In the end, the Board voted to approve the replacement project.

Kris Polly: What was the cost, and how was the project funded?

Darvin Fales: The total cost of Phase II was $2 million.

The Board voted to use the District’s contract reserves to finance 100 percent of the project. Based on our 1968 Repayment Contract, the District is required to keep 30 percent of its 5-year average operations and maintenance expenses in reserve. The problem with using the construction Irrigation Leader

reserve account is that the funds have to be paid back within 10 years. We had hoped for a longer-term—20-year—loan so that we would not have to burden our farmers with additional short-term assessments. As it stands now, though, we will have to apply some per-acre assessments over the next 10 years to repay the construction reserve account as required by the repayment contract with Reclamation.

I also want to make the point that another downside to using our construction reserves is that it makes funds unavailable in the event of any additional emergencies. While we did not completely deplete the construction reserve fund, we came close.

Kris Polly: Why did the District decide to spend the reserves rather than seek funds elsewhere?

Darvin Fales: There were a couple of reasons. First, that’s why the construction reserves are accumulated. The reserves are not meant to only fund emergency repairs, but to conduct “extraordinary maintenance” as well. Second, Reclamation made it clear that it was not going to provide long-term financing. Reclamation did offer a loan of $500,000, but we were going to have to pay it back in five years with a marketbased interest rate. That was a big factor. Using our reserves, we’re just borrowing from ourselves and repaying ourselves.

The risk is that we might need that money for other issues before it’s paid back.

We were hoping to get a loan guarantee under Reclamation’s new authority provided in Public Law 111-11 for “extraordinary or emergency operations and maintenance.” We believed that we met all the criteria, almost to a “T,” and that our request was consistent with congressional intent expressed in Public Law 111-11; however, that did not happen.

An additional and significant factor in our decision to turn down Reclamation’s $500,000 loan offer was liability.

The provisions of the loan required the District to protect the project facilities, protect water quality, and indemnify Reclamation if anything happened or anybody was injured during the life of the project. Essentially, if a tanker truck were to fall into the canal and contaminate the water, the District would have to indemnify the United States. These indemnifications would have even made the District liable for the sole negligence of the United States. Our insurance provider told us that under such an agreement, the District’s risk is not insurable.

The QCBID had never seen such proposed indemnification language before. However, Reclamation told us at the time that it was imposing these conditions on all Reclamation-funded or -guaranteed projects because of the 2008 canal breach in Fernley, Nevada.

Kris Polly: How would you describe the canal’s condition today?

Darvin Fales: This section of the West Canal is now rock solid. I was telling a story earlier today. We rebuilt an Irrigation Leader

existing fence originally constructed by the City of Ephrata a while back to prevent access to the West Canal from Oasis Park—not really our responsibility, but the right thing to do. Anyway, we’ve had some pretty violent wind and thunderstorms around here the past few days, and a tree blew over and fell on the fence. We immediately thought it was one of the trees that had rotted in the waterlogged soil from the old canal seepage. Early on, we removed a lot of those trees to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Well, we went out there to look at the tree and, ironically, we found that the exact opposite had happened. The tree was dying because its roots were bone dry. I felt bad about the tree and the fence, but it confirmed that we did a great job fixing the canal.

Kris Polly: What is your advice to other general managers and districts that have canals that need major repairs or are at risk for causing flooding?

Darvin Fales: Unfortunately, we more often than not have to assume we’re on our own. We probably would not have tackled the job if we had not hired our own professional engineer (HDR) to help solve the problem. That’s one of the things we’d recommend to any irrigation district—that the district first hire a professional engineering firm to look at the problem with the district’s staff engineer. We found that it made a big difference given the schedule and need for several engineering disciplines.

Another factor that contributed to the success of our project was the tremendous cooperation from the local water users. They were extremely helpful in terms of accommodating the project, providing materials, and giving us access to the property, all without any substantial costs to the District.

My advice to other districts is to be proactive—don’t sit back and wait for someone else to come in and point out problems to you. You need to go out and do the inspections, conduct the geotechnical investigation, check the stability of embankments, and come to grips with the severity of your problems. These are canals in major urban areas, and we as an industry cannot afford to have a repeat of the Fernley breach. Any failure that could have been prevented and that causes harm to persons or property is unacceptable. Identify system weaknesses, fix them, and worry about who pays for them later. We have learned from this experience, and the opportunity to resolve the associated financial matters is still an open door and will be pursued by the District for the benefit of our water users and for other irrigation districts throughout the western United States.

As a parting comment, I want to add that when you’re facing something like this or find yourself in a similar situation, you have a choice. You can sit there and wring your hands, or you can roll up your shirtsleeves and get down to business. In the QCBID, we roll up our shirtsleeves.

7

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Saving Our Dams

By Chairman Doc Hastings

I

t is easy to forget how important the dams are to our everyday lives in the Pacific Northwest. Without these dams, our energy bills would be higher, the Columbia Basin would be dry grass and sagebrush instead of green fields and orchards, and eastern Washington wheat farmers would find it much harder and more costly to transport their products to the ocean ports that are a gateway to consumers around the world.

10

Irrigation Leader

Unfortunately, extremists have been trying for decades to remove these dams. Under the guise of salmon recovery, their radical agenda threatens our very way of life.

Let me make myself clear. This is not a fight about salmon recovery. People in the Pacific Northwest are dedicated to healthy salmon runs. Through comprehensive efforts to address the entire range of factors impacting fish populations, including habitat, harvest levels, hatcheries, predators—and yes, improving our dams to maximize safe passage for fish—more salmon are returning up the Columbia River to spawn than even before the dams were built.

These salmon return numbers show that we don’t have to choose between fish and dams.

However, these scientific data have failed to derail the extremists, whose threats to our dams come in many forms.

From lawsuits and public relations campaigns financed by radical environmental groups aimed to breach any and every dam in existence, to activist judges who try to run the Columbia and Snake rivers from the bench, some of these threats are obvious.

Other threats to our dams are less obvious, but just as dangerous. In recent years, efforts on the federal and state level have sought to make hydropower less desirable and more expensive, ranging from an initiative to exclude hydropower from the definition of renewable energy to directives by Washington, DC, bureaucrats to potentially force ratepayers to pay for activities that have nothing to do with power generation.

I feel privileged to serve as Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has held a number of congressional hearings over the past year and a half to provide oversight and propose solutions to these hydropower challenges. On August 1, I introduced the “Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act.” This bill does what the title says—it aims to protect federal dams from extremist attacks with no basis in science and to encourage future development of clean, renewable hydropower.

To me, the provisions in this bill are simple and common sense. For example, the bill declares what should be a no brainer: that hydropower is defined under federal law as a renewable energy source.

It stops federal taxpayer dollars from being used to remove a hydropower-producing dam unless specifically authorized by Congress and prevents federal funding to reward organizations that sue the federal government in attempts to force dam removal.

Irrigation Leader

The bill also prohibits federal funding to carry out directives in Energy Secretary Chu’s March 16, 2012, memo that could increase power rates in the Pacific Northwest until the Department of Energy justifies these proposals and obtains authorization from Congress.

It improves transparency by requiring the Bonneville Power Administration and its counterparts in other regions to tell ratepayers how much of their power bill goes to fish and wildlife activities each month.

It also addresses costly regulations unrelated to dam power generation that are imposed by federal agencies as part of their efforts to license or relicense nonfederal hydropower dams. These conditions can push a dam project’s costs out of reach of small utilities or result in increased costs passed on to ratepayers.

Those of us in the Pacific Northwest, where 70 percent of our power comes from the dams, understand the many benefits of hydropower. Therefore, my bill also aims to make it easier to develop more of this clean, renewable resource.

At a time when our nation is running record deficits, I think it only makes sense to encourage entities other than the federal government to build new water and power projects as long as federal and state laws are followed.

Therefore, my bill allows nonfederal groups to study and construct new water storage projects and creates new and innovative nonfederal funding sources to finance them.

My bill also includes provisions authored by Congressman Tipton of Colorado that streamline the development of responsible hydropower projects in federally owned irrigation canals that do not jeopardize water delivery.

A few radical environmental groups that have a singular purpose of tearing out dams may believe the ideas in this bill are “extreme.” However, these groups ignore that hydropower dams are the cleanest renewable energy and that salmon can and are thriving as dams are operating.

On August 15, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing in Pasco, Washington, where witnesses from a variety of perspectives testified about our dams and the provisions in this bill.

Dams are essential to our livelihoods, and the Pacific Northwest would be a drastically different place, with more hardships and fewer economic opportunities, without them. This is why I will continue to push forward on this legislation, which would protect against the activist judges, radical environmental groups, and federal bureaucrats that threaten these dams and the benefits they provide.

11

The Value of Routine Preventative Measures

S

ituated in central Washington’s Kittitas Valley, the 330 miles of canals and laterals of the Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD) service 60,000 acres of irrigated land. KRD diverts water from the Yakima River into its Main Canal by a diversion dam near the town of Easton. The Main Canal then carries the water parallel to the river at 1,200 cubic feet per second to a point where it divides into the North and South Branch Canals, with each branch providing water to irrigated lands of the Kittitas Valley.

This past spring, the Kittitas Valley experienced severe thunderstorms and torrential rainfall. On the night of July 17, 2012, a lightning storm is believed to have caused a glitch in the electrically controlled

Void in the canal bank and intact lining.

KRD crew finishing repair behind the canal lining.

12

Irrigation Leader

Damage to the canal bank on KRD's Main Canal.

gate that feeds the South Branch Canal. The gate fully closed, putting additional water in the Main Canal, which was already at maximum flow, and causing a significant overflow of the concrete-lined canal.

As soon as the South Branch gate closed, the water level rose above the concrete panels lining the canal at a point upstream of the gate and started flowing over the canal bank. While the water did not wash out the adjacent canal bank roadway, it did flow into the rocky fill of the canal embankment. Soil was washed out from between the rocks, allowing the concrete canal lining to settle at least 1 foot into the void. Parts of the canal lining were unsupported while water was flowing at abnormally high levels in the canal.

Led by District Manager Ken Hasbrouck, KRD staff and crew took quick action to assess the situation and create a plan of action. KRD requested that CH2M HILL engineer Dick Haapala visit the damaged area the following morning. He observed the void in the embankment and several concrete lining panels suspended in midair next to the void. Even though the canal lining had moved, it was intact and holding water in the canal.

In the spring of this year, as part of routine canal maintenance, KRD continued with an accelerated joint sealing program. At the recommendation of Mr. Haapala several years ago, KRD hired a company to spray Aqualastic—an elastomeric polymer material—on the joints and cracks up for repair at that time. Notably, the damaged area just happened to be on this year’s maintenance schedule. Although only the joints were Irrigation Leader

sealed, not the entire panel surface, the protection was sufficient to prevent water from rushing out of the canal.

In the past, KRD had only utilized asphalt-like materials for its sealing projects. Those materials, however, often lacked the flexibility and elasticity to address the considerable movement in the lining joints. By this spring, KRD had been using Aqualastic for several years.

After assessing the damage, Mr. Haapala determined that the lining was stable as long as it was not disturbed and a proper amount of support could be added behind it. KRD carefully placed a controlled density fill (CDF) consisting of a very low-strength concrete in the void in the canal bank to provide support underneath the lining.

CDF is usually composed of sand, a little cement, and additives to make it flow in and around rock voids or pipes.

In the end, the lining had settled more than a foot, lower than what it should be to provide a normal amount of freeboard. To raise the canal side back up after the CDF had set, KRD formed and poured a concrete curb on the top edge of the lining.

The fix ended up being relatively simple. So too was the lesson. Preventative maintenance—here in the form of sealing joints with flexible, rubbery material—can save thousands of hours of work and cost down the road.

Had those joints not been sealed, there would have been considerably more flow through the canal lining, washing it and the steep hillside below out into the Yakima River.

In this case, routine maintenance directly prevented, in the words of Mr. Haapala, “a catastrophic failure.”

13

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The District Manager as Scientist: Lessons from the Aquatic Herbicide Permitting Process

R

egulatory agencies often take an extremely cautious approach to permitting pesticides and herbicides. Potentially permanent agency permitting decisions may be based on questionable assumptions or well-established fact.

Today’s irrigation district managers have to be able to assess the strength of the data supporting agency decisions and take the necessary steps to ensure that those decisions are scientifically justifiable. Recently, when an aquatic herbicide permit came up for renewal in Washington state, the Washington State Water Resources Association (WSWRA) did just that.

Legal Context for the Regulation of Aquatic Pesticides and Herbicides

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegates to the state of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) the responsibility to implement federal and state water pollution Endothall study scientists Lauren Courter of Mt. Hood Environmental and control laws and regulations. Pursuant to the Ian Courter of Cramer Fish Sciences.

CWA, Ecology issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the use of aquatic pesticides and herbicides in state waters, including irrigation canals. The CWA allows Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2006 states to develop more stringent regulations than those EPA guidance was not an appropriate rulemaking required by the EPA. under the Administrative Procedures Act. The court The regulation of aquatic pesticides dates back over held that NPDES permits are required for the 10 years. In the 2001 case, Headwaters Inc. v. Talent Irrigation application of all biological pesticides, and chemical District, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which pesticides that leave a residue, in or over U.S. waters. serves Washington state, held that the application of aquatic The Cotton Council case now applied the Talent pesticides to irrigation canals is a point-source discharge into decision to all jurisdictions. The decision, however, the waters of the United States subject to NPDES permitting. changed little for Washington state permittees because This case was the first to hold that irrigation canals are they had been operating under complex, Ecologysubject to the CWA section 402 provisions. The court went issued five-year permits since 2002. Ecology continued on to hold (in dicta) that a label approved under the Federal to issue NPDES permits for aquatic pesticides and Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does herbicides throughout the legal dispute. not eliminate the need for such a permit. In response to that decision, Ecology developed permits to regulate the use of Endothall Regulation in Washington State aquatic pesticides.

Milfoil is the bane of a canal operator’s existence.

Then, in 2006, the EPA adopted an internal guidance Herbicides are an important tool in combatting memorandum concluding that EPA-issued NPDES permits invasive weeds that can harm water quality, reduce were not required for applications of pesticides to U.S. fish habitat, and block domestic and agricultural waters when the pesticides were already EPA approved water supplies. The aquatic herbicide endothall is via the extensive FIFRA labeling process. The guidance used to control invasive aquatic plants because it memorandum brought on a series of lawsuits, culminating in is effective in eliminating species such as milfoil at 2009’s National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA. In that case, the low concentrations. Two years ago, Ecology began

16

Irrigation Leader

permitting an endothall derivative, manufactured as Cascade® by United Phosphorus, Inc. (UPI), for aquatic weed control in irrigation channels.

In past studies of endothall, Ecology had concluded its risk to be low compared with alternatives and unlikely to cause adverse chronic environmental impacts. Currently, the EPA approves, and manufacturers recommend, the application of up to 5 parts per million (ppm) acid equivalent for weed control with endothall. To provide some perspective, concentrations lethal to fish are greater than 20 to 40 times that application rate. However, two years ago, Ecology set NPDES permit conditions to 1.0 ppm in the spring when salmon smolts are present and 2.5 ppm in the summer and fall for the concentrations of Cascade® discharges.

Ecology, in justifying its limit of the use of endothall to 1 ppm, referenced a piece of scientific literature that indicated that the chemical was potentially lethal to salmon smolts. Essentially, from April 15 to July 15, when smolts make their way to the ocean, Ecology wanted to limit 80 percent of the potential of Cascade®. This move proved problematic for Washington’s irrigation operators, who relied on the full effectiveness of Cascade® to combat aquatic weeds in the spring.

Challenging Assumptions

After investigating the scientific study upon which Ecology relied, WSWRA decided to challenge the permit limitation. WSWRA thought that the study lacked sufficient scientific rigor and comprehensiveness to justify setting the endothall discharge levels well below the EPA’s label standard. In fact, prior studies addressing the effects of endothall on salmon smolts varied widely in design and results. In WSWRA’s opinion, the permit condition lacked a solid scientific foundation for concluding that Cascade® affects the ability of salmon to transition from freshwater to seawater.

WSWRA took matters into its own hands. It created a voluntary assessment and tapped into association reserves to hire Cramer Fish Sciences (CFS), a company based in Portland, Oregon, to develop a thorough experiment to investigate the impact of endothall on smolts. CFS, in conjunction with consulting firm Mt. Hood Environmental (MHE), worked closely with all the parties involved—WSWRA, Ecology, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and UPI—to design the experiment and ensure that all parties were satisfied with the study’s level of thoroughness.

The timeline for the study was relatively quick.

WSWRA developed the scope of work in November 2010, and the experiment ran from June to August 2011.

By October, CFS and MHE had completed the report.

The results were clear: Cascade® does not have damaging

Irrigation Leader

effects on salmon smolts when applied at the FIFRA label approved rate of 5 ppm.

In October 2011, WSWRA requested a permit modification to allow for the discharge of the Cascade® at the rate of 5 ppm for the entire irrigation season. By November, Ecology reviewed the fish toxicity study and concluded that the permit modification was favorable for public health and the environment. Such a swift regulatory change is a rare event. CFS scientist Ian Courter credits WSWRA with setting the stage for the modification by actively including all of the stakeholders, especially Ecology, in each phase of the study.

Lessons in Scrutiny and Planning

Tom Myrum, executive director of the WSWRA, encourages irrigation district managers to “look carefully at the science the agency uses to justify the conditions of the permit, especially the discharge limits.” The challenge, however, is on the permittee. Challenging permit conditions requires a significant financial and time investment. But, as Myrum found, “Whatever money you spend, you are going to reap the benefits in so many practical and operational ways.” The CFS/MHE study not only led to the permit modification, but it also conferred more credibility to the underlying permit, the way Ecology and WSWRA conduct their business, and the force of WSWRA’s arguments.

Under the CWA, NPDES permits must be renewed every five years. Districts must prepare long before those five years are up by approaching the state agency, or the EPA if CWA permitting is not delegated to the state, and discussing the terms of the permit. Often, new permit writers join the agency between issuances. So, Myrum emphasizes, it is important to reach out to new permit writers and set goals together. Fortunately, the old permit will stay in effect until a new permit is issued. Thus, with respect to issues related to the science underlying permit conditions, there is time to assess and possibly challenge them beyond the five-year term of the permit.

Regulatory agencies may not necessarily have an accurate interpretation of existing research, so it is important to be aware of what research is available and what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from that research. Courter recommends that districts have “their research ducks in a row . . . [to] engage in a scientific discussion” about the agency’s assumptions and conclusions. In cases where conclusions are uncertain or unsubstantiated, according to Myrum, “It’s really all about careful planning and being prepared to challenge any position the agency takes.” Where fish effects are concerned, you may not only be addressing CWA compliance but also Endangered Species Act compliance.

17

CBDL Promotes Local Financing to Move Odessa Ahead

By Vicky Scharlau

T

he Columbia Basin Development League (CBDL) is looking forward to beginning the process of implementing the Preferred Alternative identified in the Odessa Subarea Special Study that will deliver surface water to 70,000 acres of farmland now drawing water from deep wells. Bureau of Reclamation infrastructure projects like the Columbia Basin Project have, in the past, been constructed through funding by congressional appropriation with the investment repaid on long-term contracts by project farmers. Current economic conditions dictate that alternative financing methods must be found to begin immediate implementation, as Congress is not likely to make appropriations for the project in the near term. As a result, much attention has turned toward the concept of “private” or “local” funding to replace what had come from the federal government in prior developments.

The CBDL and project partners—Reclamation, Department of Ecology Office of Columbia River, and East Columbia Basin Irrigation District—support a new approach to development of the Preferred Alternative. The funding plan will divide project costs into two elements: (1) East Low Canal expansion and siphon construction and (2) lateral system pumping plants and pipelines. CBDL will seek appropriations from the Washington legislature in the 2013 session for the East Low Canal work. The eight lateral pump station and pipeline systems will be developed through the creation of local improvement districts (LIDs)

by East Columbia Basin Irrigation District.

What Are Local Improvement Districts?

LIDs are special assessment districts in which improvements specifically and primarily benefit the property owners in the district. Municipal governments sponsor the creation of LIDs; they are not self-governing special-purpose districts. LIDs are uniquely American in origin, with roots back to colonial times. Most municipal governments in Washington can use LIDs, although procedural differences vary depending on the type of governing body. The following types of municipal government have the authority to form LIDs: cities and towns; county water and/or sewer districts; county road districts; county service districts; water districts; sewer districts; fire protection districts; irrigation districts; transportation benefit districts; port districts; and park and recreation districts.

LIDs provide a means for benefitting properties to finance needed capital improvements through the formation of special assessment districts. LIDs allow improvements to be financed and paid for over a period of time through assessments on the benefitting properties.

18

The entire LID process is about financing capital improvements, not constructing them. LID statutes do not address technical feasibility, design, cost estimates, construction management, and project closeout requirements. The irrigation district that sponsors the creation of the LID is responsible for design, estimates, and construction management for the infrastructure improvement, just as for any other project not financed by a LID. Ultimately, LID processes lead to the sale of bonds to investors and the retirement of those bonds via annual payments by the property owners within a district. Goals of the LID process are twofold: (1) present a bond portfolio to investors that will entice them to invest (at as low a rate of return as possible) and (2) assess property owners as fairly as possible in relation to the special benefit received.

LIDs cost money to administer, just as there are costs associated with originating private financing through a bank. Interim financing incurs interest costs. Bond sales involve bond counsel, underwriters, and other costs. All these costs add to the share of project costs that LID participants are expected to assume.

Washington irrigation district law (RCW 87.03) authorizes districts to create LIDs to finance special benefit projects for lands within the district. Districts can issue bonds to finance construction and assess lands receiving water to repay on up to a 50-year term. Formation of an LID can be initiated through a petition by affected landowners or on motion of the district board of directors.

The formation process involves development of a specific plan that includes estimates of costs and project design. Much of this work has already been done as part of the Odessa Subarea Special Study. Public hearings on the plan are then held to get input from affected landowners before the district board of directors creates the LID. Landowners can halt the process by submitting a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the affected landowners.

Additional information on the formation of a LID can be found in a presentation given by Hugh Spitzer of Foster Pepper during the 2011 CBDL conference and annual meeting, which can be found at http://cbdl.org/files/documents/2011 AM/Hugh_Spitzer_ Presentation1.pdf and http://cbdl.org/files/documents/2011 AM/Hugh_Spitzer_Presentation2.pdf.

Vicky Scharlau is the executive director of the Columbia Basin Development League. For more information about the work being done by the Columbia Basin Development League, please call (509) 782-9442 or e-mail info@cbdl.org.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Shared Resources, Shared Ideas

T

he Tri-state Meetings are joint meetings of the Washington State Water Resources Association (WSWRA), the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC), and the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA). The groups have met every four months for the last 17 years to discuss pressing irrigation issues and to update the respective associations about what is happening on the local and state levels. The meetings are a model for collaboration on water issues and reflect the shared nature of water resources.

Meeting participants are well known to water resources professionals in the Northwest.

WSWRA, led by Executive Director Tom Myrum, is the coordinating agency for over 100 irrigation districts in Washington state. OWRC, led by Executive Director April Snell, represents irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water providers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated land in Oregon. IWUA, led by Executive Director and General Counsel Norm Semanko, comprises 300 irrigation districts and canal companies, agri-businesses, public water supply organizations, professional firms, and individuals from Idaho. Each group promotes and assists in the development, conservation, preservation, and utilization of their respective states’ water resources.

History

The origins of the meetings can be traced back to the mid-1990s. Tom Myrum recalls, “Years ago when I first started this job, there was a problem in Idaho on the Snake River.” There was a perception in Idaho that once Snake River water purchased from Idaho irrigators to support fish flows reached Washington state, Washington water users were appropriating the water for other out-of-stream uses. Given the push for dam removal on the lower Snake River, Washington irrigators were worried that Idaho might take a position in favor of removal as a more drastic solution to the politically charged fish transportation issues. This situation posed a pressing political problem among the water agencies and associations of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. The Tri-state Meetings

20

were borne out of a desire to get better acquainted, share information, and ease that potentially tense situation.

To facilitate a sharing of information and to promote dialogue, Myrum, Sherl Chapman, who was IUWA executive director at the time, and Jan Lee, former OWRC executive director, decided to meet every four months in each state. The meetings were to provide a forum to talk about the issues of the day. Since that time, the regularly scheduled meetings have been held without fail.

Nuts and Bolts

The host-state executive prepares the initial agenda for the meeting, which is then circulated to the three state executives who set the items for discussion. Each topic has an assigned individual to present information and facilitate the conversation.

Attendees range in number from 40 to 60, depending on the meeting location. Meetings last four to five hours on average, generally starting at 10 a.m. to accommodate those who fly in for the meeting and finishing in the early afternoon to allow for travel home.

Topics of discussion at Tri-state Meetings often revolve around regulatory issues. According to Norm Semanko, “We are always trading stories about what the regulatory requirements are in our respective states, and what is going on in Washington, DC, with legislation or rulemaking.”

In Semanko’s estimation, the requirements of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for aquatic herbicides has been the number one issue addressed by meeting participants over the last several years. Other frequent topics include the Endangered Species Act and the treatment of canals and drains under the Clean Water Act. As April Snell emphasized, “There are so many issues facing irrigated agriculture. . . . It is important to know about what is on the horizon to prepare for new challenges.”

Representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation are regular presenters at the meetings. A regional director or area manager talks about what is happening in the region with respect to topics such as salmon, the Bureau’s budget, or a local project.

Meeting participants often discuss potential Irrigation Leader

changes to the directives and standards in the Reclamation Manual.

Meetings are a forum for information sharing and a chance to find out what is going on in other states. They also provide an opportunity to discuss issues at the national level. The member associations, however, do not typically use the Tri-state Meetings as a vehicle for proposing advocacy letters. Instead, member districts and associations work with federal advocates, such as the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance. State associations manage common issues at the state level. On the other hand, tristate members have worked cooperatively to visit congressmen, senators, and congressional staffs in Washington, DC.

Value

The Tri-state Meetings are a real opportunity for personal interaction and understanding among irrigation managers.

Managers can commiserate about problems and share best practices. Snell stated that the meetings provide a forum for “more in-depth conversation, [where] you can ask questions that you wouldn’t normally ask in other forums—we are with peers, with friends.” As Myrum puts it, “Idaho managers may learn about a new issue in Idaho before Washington managers do, and likewise, we know something in Washington before they do.” By sharing recent local and regional developments, managers can deal with issues more efficiently.

The value of this regional dialog is tremendous. As Norm Semanko noted, “We have had a couple of long-time water association board members who go to these meetings and say the meetings are among the best they have ever attended—they are really worthwhile in terms of information gathering.”

Myrum added, “The Tri-state Meetings consistently exceed expectations, and the shortterm and long-term value is immeasurable.”

The next Tri-state Meeting will be held on September 14 in Boise.

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

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

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

slh@lclaw-nm.com Irrigation Leader

21

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Diamond Plastics PVC Pipe Helping Irrigation Districts

Save Water

Gasketed PVC Pipe:

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

“With four plants in the 17 western states, we are a truckload away from you.”

Dennis Bauer, Vice President of Sales and Marketing

• 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

New Nebraska Revenue Option Spurs Pipeline Project

T

he Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) in southwestern Nebraska has nearly completed a roughly $13 million project that includes a 7-mile pipeline intended to aid Nebraska’s efforts to maintain compliance with a three-state compact that guides the use of the Republican River. The project was initiated by the URNRD, but it was Nebraska lawmakers and Governor Dave Heineman who made the river augmentation project and other major water-related projects like it possible.

A few years ago, the lawmakers and the governor devised and approved new taxing authority that now gives natural resources districts (NRDs) in Nebraska the ability to collect revenue that can be used for projects that generate river stream flow across the state line. The NRDs are locally elected government subdivisions, usually made up of all or portions of two to six counties, that have the authority to manage ground water. Their boundaries follow the boundaries of major river basins in the state.

This local management of water and other resources is unique nationally, and is considered desirable by groups ranging from agriculture organizations to environmentalists. The state also has a strong role in resource management through its Department of Natural Resources. Water-management attributes of both NRDs and the state are beneficially melded under the occupationtax law: To levy the occupation tax, NRDs and the state must jointly create and approve water-management plans.

Use of the occupation tax thus far has been limited to the Republican River Basin in southwestern and southcentral Nebraska, but there are signs that other NRDs in the state may eventually levy the tax to generate revenue for needed water projects. The maximum amount of occupation tax that can be levied is $10 per irrigated acre.

Creating additional stream flow is of particular importance in the Republican Basin because the basin and

Excavator clears trench as workers prepare gasket for next section of pipe.

Stockpiled 24-inch plastic pipe along flagged route where 7 miles of pipeline will be buried.

24

Irrigation Leader

Nebraska are subject to an interstate compact that includes Kansas and Colorado. If irrigators weren’t paying the tax, residents across Nebraska could be asked to shoulder more of the financial burden.

In the URNRD, irrigators have become very familiar with the importance of maintaining compliance with the compact and have largely accepted the occupation tax as an effective way to do so. Their financial commitment has been significant: Over the last five years, a total of nearly $14 million in occupation taxes has been levied against irrigators in the URNRD. The NRD’s river augmentation project represents the largest project to date using occupation tax funds. In 2011, the URNRD purchased a contiguous farm with 3,260 irrigated acres for $10 million. The land is located near the original headwaters of Rock Creek in Dundy County, a significant tributary of the Republican River.

All 3,260 acres have been retired from irrigated crop production and are being seeded to native grass. This retirement is expected to positively impact flows in Rock Creek, thereby increasing flows in the Republican River.

On the northern part of the property, farthest away from Rock Creek so as to reduce impacts on stream flow, five ground-water wells will be piped together and connected to the main pipeline to supply water to the Republican River via Rock Creek when necessary to help maintain compliance with the compact. In essence, a portion, but not all, of the ground water that otherwise would have

Family Farm

LLIANCE The Family

Excavator burying pipe with a minimum 5 feet of cover.

been used by irrigated crops on the property had it not been bought by the URNRD will instead be delivered to the Republican River when needed.

State officials have said it’s the kind of project needed to maintain compliance. And without some progressive thinking and action by the state, it would have been much more difficult to achieve.

SM

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

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

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

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

Hydroelectric Project Relicensing:

A Call for Change

By Einar Maisch

P

lacer County, California, stretches from the Sacramento Valley, northeast of the capital, across the foothills and mountains that fueled the Gold Rush, to the High Sierras and northern Lake Tahoe. The California Legislature established the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) in 1957 to provide water and energy services to the county.

PCWA serves its customers through water resource planning and management, irrigation and drinking water supply, and hydroelectric energy production. Our irrigation services provide water to the pastures, rice fields, farms, orchards, and ranches of the county’s agricultural community.

PCWA is the owner and licensee of the Middle Fork American River Project (MFP), situated west of Lake Tahoe, on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Since 1967, the MFP provides both water and electricity to western Placer County. The hydroelectric project diverts and stores water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use and produces an average of 1 million megawatt‐hours (mWh) per year of clean, carbon‐free energy.

PCWA’s 50‐year Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license expires early next year. In my capacity as director of Strategic Affairs, in cooperation with the county, I have overseen the relicensing of the MFP. I have also directed PCWA’s active participation as a stakeholder in the relicensing of two FERC hydroelectric projects in the Yuba River Watershed, located north of the American River: the Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) Yuba‐Bear Hydroelectric Project and Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) Drum‐Spaulding Project. Our respective experiences with the relicensing process provide a cautionary narrative, but also indicate where improvements can be made to create efficiencies and reduce costs while still adhering to regulatory requirements.

The Relicensing Process

FERC possesses the legal authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to issue licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric projects. The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is FERC’s default process for this. The ILP sets licensing process deadlines, including study plan determinations, requests for additional information, and the filing of terms and conditions by resource agencies. However, even if the licensee strictly adheres to the ILP schedule, there may be insufficient time, prior to the application submittal, to complete the required tasks to resolve conflicts with relicensing participants on potential new conditions. Resource agencies can also impose both conditions that require extensive studies after the license is issued and adaptive management that allows the agencies 26

to modify their mandatory conditions over the term of the license.

During the relicensing process, FERC must give “equal consideration” to developmental and nondevelopmental values.

These values include the utilization of the site’s hydroelectric potential; the potential benefits to commerce; the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; and other beneficial public uses, including energy conservation, irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreation. The baseline for existing environmental conditions is set at current project facilities and ongoing operations and management.

On the other hand, resource agencies, unlike FERC, do not have to give equal consideration to developmental and nondevelopmental values. Under section 4(e) of the FPA, resource agencies may establish mandatory conditions for lands within their federal reservation. While mandatory conditions must not interfere with the purpose for which the federal reservation was created or acquired, and must be necessary for the “adequate protection and utilization” of such reservation, there is no requirement for a balancing test. This means that resource agencies can impose conditions that result in loss of hydropower generation, require costly modifications, and increase maintenance costs without considering the overall effects on project economics, energy supply, water supply, and other public benefits.

Since the FPA does not allow FERC to modify or reject mandatory conditions filed by resource agencies, there is no mechanism to establish final license conditions that balance developmental and nondevelopmental values—a direct conflict with FERC’s authority under the FPA. And while there are channels of response to preliminary mandatory conditions for the licensee to pursue (comments, the proposal of alternative conditions, and a request for a trial-like proceeding), they are either ineffectual or too costly and time consuming to undertake. In addition, the resource agencies do not consider the filing of mandatory conditions to be a “federal action” requiring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the effects of the conditions. Ultimately, there is no requirement for resource agencies to provide an objective or rationale for imposed conditions. They have all the leverage.

All of this amounts to a long and expensive relicensing process that creates uncertainty in budgeting and planning. The process disperses decisionmaking authority across a range of federal and state agencies pursuing different statutory missions.

The implementation of new license conditions dramatically increases capital and operating costs. In some cases, the loss of generation revenue combined with increased costs outweighs the benefits of the hydroelectric project and results in project decommission. On average, the relicensing process results in an Irrigation Leader

8 to 10 percent loss of the nation’s hydropower.

The PWCA Experience

For the relicensing of the MFP, PCWA made the strategic decision to invest in the development of the study plans and the implementation of scientific studies early in the process.

In fact, PCWA began relicensing activities five years prior to filing a notice of intent. PCWA also obtained FERC approval to expedite the study plan process. Early implementation of the study plans allowed PCWA to complete the process in a sufficient amount of time for the results to be used by relicensing participants to collaborate on new license conditions.

PCWA has worked collaboratively with resource agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders on this project. Overall, we feel that the relicensing stakeholders have appreciated PCWA’s approach and that they have been reasonable in setting conditions generally consistent with our final license application. We believe that this success was directly related to PCWA’s early engagement in the process and active collaboration with relicensing participants.

PCWA has spent seven years and about $37 million on the relicensing of the MFP to date. Under the preliminary terms and conditions filed by the mandatory conditioning agencies, PCWA expects to lose about 5 percent of annual energy generation as a result of increased instream flows requirements.

We expect to spend approximately $20 million on capital improvements, our annual operation and maintenance costs will increase approximately $2.4 million per year, and direct cash payments to resource agencies will amount to another $1 million per year.

Under the current regulatory framework, this is success.

The PG&E and NID Experience

In the northern adjacent watershed, the story is different. PG&E is relicensing its Drum‐Spaulding Project collaboratively with NID’s Yuba‐Bear Hydroelectric Project.

The Drum‐Spaulding/Yuba‐Bear projects are highly integrated, operating as a single system with over 50 individual diversions and functioning as one of the most complex hydropower systems in the nation. Many of its facilities date back to the California Gold Rush era.

PG&E and NID complied with every ILP deadline, but made the strategic decision to be less aggressive in the development of study plans and implementation of environmental studies compared to PCWA. This approach was likely due to the overall complexity of the system and the inability of the project revenues to support the scope of studies expected by resource agencies. With less timely information available, resource agencies have been more aggressive.

Their current proposal will result in a loss of approximately 10 percent of average annual generation, in addition to significant capital improvements and increased operating costs.

As a consequence, PG&E recently asked FERC to divide the Drum‐Spaulding Project into more than one licensed project.

Electric generation revenues may not be sufficient to support Irrigation Leader

continued hydropower operations of the entire system.

These facilities have provided water to the people of Placer County since the late 1800s. Licensing conditions and project uncertainty are of great concern to PCWA and its water customers.

A Call for Change

The incorporation of greater transparency and balance into the development of licensing conditions for hydroelectric projects, filtered through one agency instead of many, would provide certainty where there currently is none and inject more accountability and communication into the process. We propose two options to revise the mandatory conditioning process: Option 1 addresses many of the issues within this story on an individual basis, and includes • Requiring resource agencies to broaden the scope of their analysis when developing mandatory conditions and incorporate the balancing currently required of FERC, • Establishing that agencies filing mandatory conditions with FERC are undertaking a federal action and requiring independent environmental review under NEPA, • Requiring resource agencies to clearly define the objective of each mandatory condition with an accompanying rationale and disclosure of impacts in an open and transparent manner, • Requiring agencies to promptly consult and respond to alternative conditions prior to FERC’s draft NEPA document, rather than allowing the agencies to ignore the requests and address them after the draft NEPA document has been issued, and • Modifying the hearing process for challenging mandatory conditions such that concerns over balancing between developmental and non‐developmental values can be addressed.

Option 2 presents a direct and cost‐effective approach for revising the relicensing process. Eliminate mandatory conditioning authority and have resource agencies use their authority to file recommendations under sections 10(a) and 10(j) of the FPA. FERC could then fully evaluate and balance these recommendations in a broader context.

Einar Maisch is the director of Strategic Affairs at the Placer County Water Agency. This article is adapted from Mr. Maisch’s testimony on Mandatory Conditioning Requirements on Hydropower to the House of Representatives Natural Resource Committee on June 27, 2012.

To contact Mr. Maisch, please phone (530) 823-4882 or e-mail elmaisch@pcwa.net.

27

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Irrigated Crops

Hop Farms in the Pacific Northwest Quench the World's Thirst for Beer

H

op growing in the Pacific Northwest is a 70 percent is exported to other countries. Hop farming tradition dating back to the late 19th century. is a labor-intensive process, requiring approximately The majority of American hop farms started one skilled laborer for every 15–20 acres. During the out as and continue to flourish as multigenerational harvest, the number of laborers doubles. family-owned and -operated farms. The Pacific The hop season launches in March with the pruning Northwest boasts a combination of ideal growing of the prior season’s leaves and debris. This task is conditions and skilled producers, which make it a performed mechanically with spinning steel “fingers” natural location for the seat of the country’s hop pulled by a tractor. This leaves a clean surface from industry. As farms grow in size, skilled managers which the new shoots will develop. Chemical pruning continue to make progress in fertilization, cultivation, occurs a month later to remove any overwintering irrigation, and pest control, resulting in improved powdery mildew spores, which can decimate a crop. quality and greater crop yields.

Early fungicide application Nestled at the base of the enables farmers to minimize the 2011 U.S. Commercial Hop Production Cascade mountain range in the need to spray crops after they Washington 23,368 acres (78%) Yakima Valley, the Washington have begun developing.

Oregon 4,360 acres (14.5%) state hop industry is thriving in In early April, the twining Idaho 2,288 acres (7.5%) one of the most fertile growing process begins, with sevenregions in the world. Abundant person crews using tractorTotal 30,016 acres irrigation from the Yakima drawn elevated platforms to tie River Watershed, volcanic soil, and arid conditions twine to overhead trellis wires and secure the lower encourage hop yards to thrive. end of the twine into the center of each hop plant. The Nearly 75 percent of the U.S. hop acreage is located twine is a special kind of biodegradable string called in Washington state’s Yakima Valley, with individual farms averaging 450 acres. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho produce more than 17 major hop varieties, of which Hops growing up trellises of special biodegradeable twine known as coir in the Yakima Valley, Washington.

30

Irrigation Leader

coir, which is manufactured exclusively from coconut shell fibers in Sri Lanka for the hop industry. In May, as the shoots begin to grow, workers begin the labor intensive practice of training the plants to wrap the shoots clockwise around the vine to begin their climb up the trellis. A second and sometimes third training pass are performed until the desired number of shoots are attached to the string. This practice is critical to the plants’ yield; the relationship between plant height and daylight hours drives the number of flowers which, in turn, develop into hops.

Hops are susceptible to a wide assortment of viruses, diseases and insects. The most severe hop pests are the two-spotted spider mite and the hop aphid, which must be controlled annually. Two major diseases also affect hops— hop powdery mildew and hop downy mildew. American hop growers work closely with private and university researchers to contain and mitigate the pests and the damage they inflict on the hop harvests. Because so much of the harvest is exported internationally each year, growers and the U.S. government work closely with international disease and pest experts to ensure that pests and diseases are not spread or introduced into foreign markets.

The abundant Yakima River Watershed, fueled by melting snowpack, provides water to the hop farms in the Yakima Valley. Depending on the weather, irrigation of the hop fields begins in late May or early June. Drip

Cleaned hop cones being spread in preparation for drying.

Irrigation Leader

Nearly mature hops before harvest.

irrigation is the predominant method in Washington state, although some farmers use sprinklers and furrow methods.

During an average growing season, the hop field will use 20–30 inches of water. Weeds are controlled between the rows through mowing, and within the rows with chemical herbicides. Uncontrolled, weeds suppress yields, interfere with irrigation, serve as hosts for insects and plant pathogens, and impede harvest.

Late August begins the harvest season, which progresses through early October. The hop vines are mechanically cut at the ground and at the overhead wires, falling into the bed of a trailer or truck. The hop-laden vines are taken to picking machines located on each farm, where they are hung upside down on hooks and carried into the machines.

The machines strip the hops and leaves from the vine and send them through a series of devices to isolate the cones (the hops). The remaining stems and debris are chopped and spread back onto the fields to replenish the soil.

Cleaned cones are immediately transported by conveyor belt to hop kilns, which hold about 15,000 pounds of hop cones. Hot air at 140 degrees Fahrenheit is forced through the bed of green hops for about 9 hours, reducing the hops to 30 percent of their pre-dried (or green) weight. After being cooled for 24 hours, the hops are compressed into 200-pound bales, wrapped in burlap, inspected for quality, and transported to cold storage warehouses. Hops are sold by the pound and, in 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that Washington, Oregon, and Idaho produced a combined 65.8 million pounds of hops, with an average per-pound price of $2.77.

31

Chewing on the Chu Memo:

Has the Train (with Our Wallets) Left the Station?

Water Law

By Robert S. Lynch

32

N

othing unites people like a common enemy.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu proved that once again on March 16, 2012. On that fateful day, he issued a memorandum attempting to redirect the missions of the federal Power Marketing Administration (PMAs). He said it was time for Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern and Western, the four PMAs, to radically change the way they do business. Thus, with a stroke of a pen, Secretary Chu became the common enemy of a variety of PMA hydropower customers across a wide swath of the United States from Seattle to Tallahassee, from Los Angeles to the Dakotas.

Within days, the entire preference power community came together as one with a single message: “No thank you!”

Public power entities (cities, towns, public utility districts, etc.) and rural electric cooperatives don’t always get along.

But here they were immediately cooperating on a national as well as regional and local level. And cooperate they did.

Led by their national organizations, the American Public Power Association (APPA) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), they organized committees, corralled their lobbyists and went to work.

Letters from members of Congress started arriving on the secretary’s desk, culminating in one bipartisan letter signed by 166 members—40 senators and 126 congressmen.

Other national, regional and state associations weighed in. Governors, utility commissioners and industry officials did likewise. What they all said can be summed up in one sentence: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

What did the secretary and the department do? They said they were going to start with Western (the Western Area Power Administration), with its 17,000 miles of transmission lines in 15 states, selling hydropower from 56 federal dams. Across all of this territory and more, they wanted Western to form/join an Energy Imbalance Market, sort of a convenience market for electricity, but you have to shop there. There are no sales, no coupons, no manager’s specials, and everything costs more.

Oh, and they would hold meetings. They did. They called them workshops and listening sessions. They held six: Rapid City, Billings, Phoenix (Tempe), Folsom, Loveland, and Sioux Falls. Billings only rated a listening session. Ironically, we will pay for all of them in our power bills.

They called, and we came: state and local government officials, association staff, utility managers, engineers, farmers, city people, congressional staff, you name it! And, of course, lawyers. And what did we tell them? Lots of things, but boiled down to the essentials, it was (1) do no harm—learn more before you leap, (2) don’t make us pay other people’s electric bills, (3) more government doesn’t stop mistakes but it can make bigger ones, (4) talk to the people who have to keep the lights on, (5) treat all hydropower with respect—it’s our biggest and best renewable resource, and

(6) do whatever you’re going to do out in the open—don’t preach transparency and then go in a back room and cut your deals! Folks followed up with written comments, almost 100, which were due mid-August.

Did they listen? Sort of. Did they get the message? They sure did! Do they care? Probably not. Rumor has it that department e-mails are saying that they are just doing these meetings to look good.

What’s next? Proposed recommendations in a Federal Register notice this fall with a short window for more comments. Then final recommendations to the secretary, which they won’t tell us we can even see.

Why should you care? Well, if you’re like us in Arizona and wear both a water and a power hat, you’ll get hit twice, once in the power bill and again in your provider’s water bill. Our engineers estimate this folly could raise the price of irrigation water $10 per acre-foot. Municipal costs could be even higher. And this as we struggle to work our way out of the recession.

If you get water by gravity flow, congratulations, but chances are the people around you will be hit with higher power bills, and those who supply you with goods and services will be passing those cost increases to you. In short, wherever Western is, costs will go up and people will be hurt.

The sad thing is that the utilities—public, private and coop—can solve any set of problems that come their way. They don’t need more government, nor do we. But a handful of big companies are making lots of money on their renewable energy projects. They want to make more, and they want Western and the other PMAs to be forced to help them do just that. These folks want our federal hydropower to make their projects work better. Then they’ll make bigger profits.

What can you do? Talk to your state, regional, and national associations. Make sure they know what’s going on. Make sure they’re ready to comment when the Federal Register notice hits. Make sure they talk to APPA and NRECA about next steps. And make sure you are ready to chime in also.

And if you happen to know a congressman or senator in your neighborhood, talk to them, too. If they signed the 166-member letter or another, say “thank you.” Remind them that the battle is not over.

The Chu memo may have left the station with your wallet, but you can get it back before they take everything in it.

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

To contact Mr. Lynch, please phone (602) 254-5908 or e-mail RSLynch@rslynchaty.com.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

GISDirect Mobile

Turn your Android Smartphone into a Mapping Machine.

GIS, GPS and Camera. One Device.

Your irrigation structures are your most valued assets. And it’s your job to manage and protect those assets. GISDirectTM Mobile delivers the power of Esri® GIS technology to your AndroidTM smartphone to make it easy for field staff to map, describe and photograph your irrigation structures. GISDirect Mobile helps you harness the power of GIS and GPS in the field so your entire team can make rapid and informed decisions. Powerful, easy-to-use and affordable. Now that’s innovation and that’s GISDirect.

Learn more at GISDirect.com/mobile

1-888-791-7212 | sales@geospatialsolutions.com | gisdirect.com Brought to you by Geo-Spatial Solutions. Proudly serving agricultural water managers as an Esri Partner and GIS solution provider since 1998. Copyright © 2012 Geo-Spatial Solutions. All Rights Reserved. GISDirect, GISDirect Mobile, GISDirect Platform, and GISDirect Partner Program are trademarks, registered trademarks, or service marks of Geo-Spatial Solutions in the United States. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pivot stuck again? Put your log chain away.

RAAFT TRAcks will solve your problem.

by PolyTech LLC

• Quick & easy to install • Keeps center pivots from getting stuck • Reduces or eliminates tracks and ruts • Fits tire sizes: 11.2x24, 11.2x24.5, 11.2x38, 14.9x24 • Can withstand bridges yet float with ease over acres of muddy terrain Wholesale prices available to irrigation districts, NRDs, groundwater management districts, and other distributors for large purchases.

RAAFT tracks are manufactured using a rugged polyethylene/carbon composite plastic that is 100% recyclable and floats with ease over acres of muddy terrain. RAAFT Tracks are designed to operate in field conditions from 40° F to 105° F, with water being applied to the wet the track. It can be winter moved at temperatures down to -10°. Lightweight enough to be carried/dragged by one person, 4 to 6 bolts for installation per tower, depending on the model.

For more information, please visit our web site at

www.RAAFT.com

e-mail raaftsales@gmail.com or phone (402)

261-5774

ADVERTISEMENT

The Innovators

Hydrokinetic Potential:

H

Canal Power from Hydrovolts

ydrokinetic technologies produce clean renewable electricity by harnessing the natural movement of water. Rotating devices capture the kinetic energy of water in the form of river flows, tidal streams, or ocean currents. Rotors turn with the water flow, producing rotational energy that is converted into electricity by a generator. Since power increases with the cube of the velocity of the water, the potential for power generation is vast.

Seattle-based Hydrovolts, Inc., is at the forefront of hydrokinetic power generation in man-made waterways.

The brainchild of Chief Executive Officer Burt Hamner, the company employs turbine technology on a small scale: rivers, canals, and waterways. Canal power is predictable, and Hydrovolts has developed portable micro-hydro turbines to tap into that reliability.

Hydrovolts turbines are portable in the sense that they can be transported on the back of a pick-up and lowered into place with a crane or forklift. They tether to the side of a waterway with high-strength wire rope, floating or sitting in place at the bottom of a canal—no concrete, no costly construction expenses. Customers can install turbines side by side, or link them together down the length of a canal to increase power output.

The turbine chasses are modular, allowing the customer to choose a rotor that that maximizes output for a particular canal.

Demonstration Project in the Roza Irrigation District

Hydrovolts built its first prototype turbine in January 2010. The company needed to test the turbine, so Hydrovolts reached out to irrigation districts across Washington state. Roza Irrigation District, and its manager, Tom Monroe, demonstrated a real willingness to innovate and look for cost-saving solutions for clients. The district’s objective was simple: Make money from hydropower to reduce operating costs and charge farmers less.

In fall 2011, Hydrovolts received the first-ever license agreement for hydrokinetic power issued by the Bureau of Reclamation to demonstrate its technology in the Roza Canal. Hydrovolts conducted a six-week demonstration of its prototype canal turbine, the refrigerator-sized Class 1. The company then installed a bigger, Class 3 turbine. After another six weeks of power generation, the company removed the turbine to replace a failed bearing. At the behest of the operators,

36

Roza crew lowering a Hydrovolts turbine into the canal.

Hydrovolts Chief Engineer Jim Styner.

Hydrovolts is currently waiting for water levels to lower to reinstall and resume the work of the Class 3.

The Results

Demonstration results have been extremely positive.

The Class 1 turbine exceeded expectations, generating over 7 kilowatts (kW) in a 1,600-cubic-feet-per-second flow 24 hours per day, seven days per week, for a total of 4,450 kW-hours (kWh) in one month. At a value of 11 cents per kWh (based on the average cost of electricity in the United States), the monthly revenue projects to just under $490.

The rotors were not fouled once during the month-long demonstration. A slight amount of debris fouled the cable lines, so the company is redesigning the attachment points on the cable lines.

The company also noticed a head effect, a rise in the water level upstream of the turbine by a few inches.

However, the change in water volume quickly hits a stasis point downstream, at which the water level returns to normal. Chief Engineer Jim Styner noted that the effect “really depends on how big the turbine is versus how big the canal is and how fast the water is flowing.” Fully aware of the need of canal operators to know how the turbine will affect the freeboard on a canal, Hydrovolts has contracted with CH2M HILL to fully explore the impacts of the head effect. However, “and this is a critical point,” says Hamner, “when installed properly, turbines in canals do not reduce the flow rate.”

The form factor of the cross axis turbine allows it to fit a variety of canals. And that design gives the company the ability to market its products to widest possible number of irrigation districts.

Hydrovolts has recently become a member of the WaterEnergy Technology Center at California State University at Fresno. The center is contracted to help the company design and install a water pump that fits on a turbine shaft.

The design will allow districts to pump water out of a canal without electricity, irrigating adjacent lands without the need for electric power. Hamner is looking for input from the irrigation community about where the pump could be used and what value it creates.

Looking ahead, Hydrovolts is seeking opportunities to innovate at home and abroad. At home, it has contracted Central Washington University to help design a unique submersible electricity generator and to coordinate involvement of regional irrigation districts in the demonstration project at Roza. Farther afield, Hamner is eager to meet irrigation district leaders throughout the West who are excited about the technology and are in interested in hosting a demonstration project with the intention of purchasing a turbine once they see that it works. The company is also in discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding an assessment of the hydrokinetic energy potential in the existing infrastructure of canals and waterways.

Looking abroad, Hydrovolts has fielded inquiries from over 70 countries—from the United Kingdom to China to India. The company has been asked by the Government of Punjab State in India to demonstrate its turbines there.

Punjab has over 5,000 kilometers of large canals. Well aware that “[American] irrigators are part of a global community that is experimenting with new technology,” Hamner is also trying to position Hydrovolts to bring the best of what the world has to offer to the United States.

If you are interested in bringing a hydrokinetic turbine demonstration project to your district or would like to find out more about Hydrovolts, please visit the Hydrovolts website at www.hydrovolts.com.

Innovative Irrigation Solutions

The genius of the Hydrovolts design is that the chassis can accept different rotor types that are optimized for the condition of the water body. For example, the Savonius rotor, which uses cup-shaped blades, is good for low flow rates and debris, while the Darrieus rotor, which use blades like airplane wings, is better for high flow rates and no debris.

Irrigation Leader

Submerging the turbine.

37

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS MANAGER POSITION Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority, Ephrata, Washington The Board of Directors of Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA) seeks a candidate for the position of Manager. The manager reports to a 6-member board and is responsible for implementing the Board’s policies and directives in the development, administration and management of the East, Quincy and South Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts hydroelectric projects.

Seeking candidate with: • A bachelor’s degree in engineering or business, • Broad experience in the care, operation and maintenance of hydroelectric power plants, • Experience appropriate for the electric utility industry (particularly in the Pacific Northwest), • Demonstrated ability to work with federal, state, and local governments and administrative agencies, • Capability of obtaining federal NACI clearance through credit and background investigations for access to national security and public trust information, and • Familiarity with FERC hydro project licensing process and procedure, as well as Bonneville Power Administration and United States Bureau of Reclamation operations.

The position is located in Ephrata, Washington.

Salary DOE, includes comprehensive benefit package—medical, dental, vision and a Washington State PERS retirement plan. Desire is to have individual in position by mid January 2013.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.waterandpowerreport.com/jobs.php TO APPLY: Send resume, salary expectations and three work references no later than September 30, 2012 to: Secretary of Board, P.O. Box 219, Ephrata, WA 98823. Rubicon Water is currently seeking an experienced, highly motivated Agricultural Engineer to join our team in Phoenix, AZ, or Imperial, CA.

scope of work, overseeing and coordinating installations, and developing/managing key customers or dealer accounts. Business development experience is very important.

Bachelor's degree in Agricultural Engineering required with 5 to 10 years of experience/ knowledge in surface irrigation and related hydraulics, methods, techniques, and practices required.

Visit us at www.rubiconwater.com or contact us at 877-440-6080 to learn more about Rubicon Water and current career opportunities.

Send your resumes to employment@rubiconwater.com Rubicon Water is an Equal Opportunity Employer

Rubicon Water is currently seeking an experienced, highly motivated Field Engineer/ Technician to join our team in Phoenix, AZ. Field Engineer/Technician Phoenix, AZ The position involves the installation, troubleshooting, and support of automated irrigation control systems throughout the Americas. The successful candidate will be required to complete and oversee every aspect of project installation from product installation and commissioning to integration into SCADA and HMI systems. Duties include in-field programming and support of RTU, instrumentation, solar power systems, and motor/cable drives. Strong civil and mechanical aptitude required.

This position would suit a “hands-on” technical field engineer or electrical field technician with 2+ years’ experience in the agricultural irrigation or water industry with knowledge of PLC, SCADA, and RTU systems. Associate's degree in Electrical, Mechanical, or Civil Engineering; or equivalent qualification preferred.

Visit us at www.rubiconwater.com or contact us at 877-440-6080 to learn more about Rubicon Water and current career opportunities.

Rubicon Water is an Equal Opportunity Employer

FarmConnect Manager Phoenix, AZ, or Imperial, CA

38

Bachelor's degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering required with 4 to 10 years of experience/knowledge in agricultural irrigation or water industry preferred Visit us at www.rubiconwater.com or contact us at 877-440-6080 to learn more about Rubicon Water and current career opportunities.

Send your resumes to employment@rubiconwater.com

Send your resumes to employment@rubiconwater.com

This position is responsible for building and managing Rubicon’s new on-farm product line (FarmConnect™), introducing and successfully implementing on-farm water management solutions to farmers in the Western United States. The successful candidate will be responsible and accountable for developing and implementing the go-to-market strategy, generating leads, conducting business development activities, writing proposals and

execution throughout the Americas. The successful candidate will be responsible for product selection/sizing and review of civil installation works required for all projects.

The candidate will also serve as a Project Manager, working with client’s engineers to oversee implementation of Rubicon’s hardware, software, and SCADA solutions. As needed the role will generate CAD drawings and support the field technicians in installation, commissioning, diagnostics, warehouse logistics support, product installation, and product manufacturing and assembly.

Rubicon Water is currently seeking an experienced, highly motivated Project Engineer to join our team in Fort Collins, CO. Project Delivery Engineer Fort Collins, CO This flexible, hands-on role will primarily be responsible for supporting project

Rubicon Water is an Equal Opportunity Employer

Request For Qualifications The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) is seeking submittals for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for preparing a feasibility assessment study for developing ocean water desalination regional water supply, including the option of co-located power generation facilities.

All qualified firms including Small, Minority, and Women-Owned Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals in response to this project.

Submittals may be turned in at the GBRA Seguin headquarters located at 933 East Court Street, Seguin, Texas 78155 until 2:00 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012. Submittal forms can be obtained by contacting Yolanda Pierce at (830) 379-5822 x 271 or ypierce@ gbra.org.

Interested parties are, after reviewing the RFQ, encouraged to call James Lee Murphy, Esq. and/or Gary Asbury, P.E., at (830) 379-5822 to schedule a meeting or meetings to discuss the specific parameters of the RFQ. Submittals shall be sealed and clearly marked: “RFQ – FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A REGIONAL SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS POWER AND DESALINATION PROJECT." The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals at its option, including nonconforming proposals, and to waive any formalities.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

2012 CALENDAR Sept. 18

Sept. 23–25 Oct. 10–12 Oct. 10–12 Oct. 11–12 Oct. 24–26 Oct. 30 Oct. 31–Nov. 2 Nov. 2–6 Nov. 27–30 Nov. 29–30 Dec. 4–7 Dec. 5–7 Dec. 12–14

Mountain Counties Water Resources Association, Event: "Water and Agriculture in Northern California", Blue Goose Event Center, Loomis, CA Nebraska Assn. of Resource Districts, Annual Conference, Kearney, NE Western States Water Council, Fall Council Meetings, San Antonio, TX Western Coalition of Arid States, 2012 Fall Conference, Tucson, AZ Oregon Water Resources Congress, Technology Seminar, Bend, OR Texas Water Conservation Assn., Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX Columbia Basin Development League, Conf. & Annual Meeting, Moses Lake, WA National Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Coronado, CA Irrigation Assn., Irrigation Show and Conference, Orlando, FL Oregon Water Resources Congress, Annual Conference, Hood River, OR Idaho Water Users Assn., Winter Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID Assn. of California Water Agencies, Fall Conference, San Diego, CA Washington State Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Spokane, WA Colorado River Water Users Assn., Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV

For more information on advertising in Irrigation Leader magazine, or if you would like a water event listed here, please phone (703) 517-3962 or e-mail Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Submissions are due the first of each month preceding the next issue.

Past issues of Irrigation Leader are archived at

www.WaterandPowerReport.com