Headwaters News Forum: Water in the West
Topic - Will technology be the savior?

editor
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:37 am   Subject: Will technology be the savior?

Can science and technology alone solve the West's water problems?

Gens
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 7:45 pm

David Getches suggests in the "water conservation" thread that a change in irrigation practice could conserve significantly. Is there a need for capital (from whom? the state? the Bureau of Rec?) to change irrigation infrastructure, or does the change depend on irrigators learning about new techniques (and not needing to invest in new equipment, etc.)?

Jeff Fassett
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:14 pm

Indeed there is a need for a capital investment in conservation. In Wyoming, the State's Water Development Program, with legislative approval, has provided some communityies and irrigation districts with grants and low interest loans to support water conservation projects. The USBR has provided funding for planning but many of the large Federal Irrigation District have developed plans, but have a need for project implementation funding to assist with canal lining, re-regulation reservoir, sprinkler irrigation systems and the like. One controversial idea is to provide a market incentive that would encourage conservation, by providing a water right appropriator the chance to salvage some water resulting from seepage and be able to seek to market those savings to another user or to designate them to the stream. Several states in the west have begun to evaluate law changes to facilitate these new concepts and to fit them within the prior appropriation doctrine framework.

David Getches
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:29 pm   Subject: Paying for conservation

Let's face it: farming is rarely so profitable in the West that we can expect farmers to invest in costly sprinkler or drip irrigation systems. So the capital investments that Jeff Fassett describes are needed.

Another source of capital is from growing cities. They can pay for new irrigation systems, then take the water saved to be used in the city. The farmer can keep on growing the same crops yet consume less water. This beats having cities come in and buy up -- and dry up -- farms.

Gens Johnson
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:34 pm   Subject: Re: Paying for conservation

[quote="David Getches"] Another source of capital is from growing cities. They can pay for new irrigation systems, then take the water saved to be used in the city. The farmer can keep on growing the same crops yet consume less water. This beats having cities come in and buy up -- and dry up -- farms.[/quote]

This is a pretty neat idea! Is this arrangement in existence somewhere, so there might be a template for others to do the same? Could this kind of arrangement happen within the constraints of existing water laws?

Lynn Tominaga
Location: Idaho
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:46 pm   Subject: Cropping Patterns

Cropping patterns are determined by price and supply demands. To have a subsidy for raising less intensive water use crops would not solve the problem. A farmer manages his soil and water to optiomize the use of those resources to make a profit. Cropping patterns are based on the rotational use or pattern which can best take care of the soil fertility and manages the resource.

Bill Loftus
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 8:59 pm   Subject: Cropping patterns

No one can argue that markets play a major role in the crops grown. But it is also clear that better information gathered from new technology can make farming more efficient in how much water is used or fertilizer, etc.

Often the greater efficiencies benefit both the farmer and the public. When excess, whether it's water that later runs off, or fertilizer that seeps toward groundwater, enters into the equation problems develop.

The same holds true for a glut of any particular crop that undercuts markets and the prices farmers need to turn a profit.

David Getches
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 9:01 pm   Subject: Paying for Conservation

Gens asks if there are examples of cities paying for improved systems for irrigators.

Yes! There is a huge example in California's Imperial Valley where L.A. has paid to seal earthen canals and to make other improvements and for its multi-million dollar investment L.A. got the water saved.

Another way to keep farmers in business while cities grow is "dry year leases." The city pays the farmer to stop irrigating, but just during a drought, so the water can go to the city when it is short. Why dry up the farm permanently when the water is needed only one year in ten?

Maybe Jeff Fassett can tell about the deal that Casper, Wyo. made with the Alcova Irrigation Dist. several years ago. I have heard that they have not had to call for water from the district before this drought year of 2002. Is that right?

Gens Johnson
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 9:06 pm

Could the same kind of arrangement that cities have made with irrigators be made between those that wish to preserve instream flows and irrigators? Or is the basic fact that the cities are actually using the water, taking it out of the stream, make their arrangement with irrigators fundamentally different?

If instream flow could be augmented with these kind of agreements, then it would seem to me that "salmon recovery money" could be used to upgrade irrigation systems, to buy out drought rights, etc.????

Howard Neibling
Posted: Thu May 16, 2002 9:57 pm   Subject: technology

Although improved irrigation technology can reduce the rate of water diversion from rivers, it can also have some unintended negative consequences. For example, as irrigators in Southern Idaho have converted from surface to sprinkler irrigation, discharge from downstream springs has been reduced. This is particularly serious in one reach of the Mid-Snake where a number of aquaculture facilities and municipalities depend on spring flow for water supply. Conversion to sprinklers with the corresponding reduction in groundwater recharge resulted in lower spring flows. Conversion to sprinkler also reduced recharge to shallow perched aquifers which are the major source of water for many rural residents, resulting in dropping groundwater levels. Conversion from wild flooding (a very inefficient form of surface irrigation) to sprinkler irrigation in higher elevation pastures can actually cause small streams to dry up in mid-summer. Reduced recharge in the upland areas tranlates to less slow subsurface flow back to the stream in the summer when runoff rates have decreased - thus producing a dry stream in the summer where a continuously flowing one existed before.  Improved water application technology can have a number of positive benefits but it is also important to recognize the potential for negative consequences in some applications.

Jeff Fassett
Posted: Fri May 17, 2002 12:32 pm

As David Getches suggests there are a number of examples around the west where investment in conservation has resulted in the water savings being available for other uses. I think there need to be further incentives to encourage these opportunities, particularly in the area of providing water to streams and to meet growing municipal demands.

One example in Wyoming, was the project David G. mentioned for the City of Casper. Over a period of years, the Bureau of Reclamation, The City, the Casper-Alcova Irrigation District and The State of Wyoming cooperatively invested several million dollars into a conservation project, primarily the lining of irrigation delivery canals and laterals. This was an effort to save between 5,000 to 7,000 AF of water a year, which was to be made available to the City of Casper during drought periods. Indeed, it appears that 2002 will be the first year where the City will likely access this saved water from a federal reservoir to address the continuing drought and the fact that the City's junior priority water rights are suject to be called out under these dry streamflow conditions.

Bill Loftus
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posted: Fri May 17, 2002 10:10 pm   Subject: Technology and its limits

Casper's efforts to secure dry-year water supplies and the investment of millions seems prudent and logical. Even with the downsides cited by Howard and others to reduce losses from canals, delivering water more efficiently and more directly on target will become the basic necessity of operation in the future.

But technology can't cure all the problems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has engineered the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers to the best of its considerable ability to be "fish friendly" for migrating salmon and steelhead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are budgeted annually. And despite gains like a record chinook salmon run since counting began on the Columbia in 1938 and a sizeable run this year, prospects for next year are dim.

Why? Ultimately, it's the public's desire to reorient priorities that counts most. Will technology help advance a general appreciation of water's values or mask it?

David Getches
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posted: Sat May 18, 2002 8:03 am   Subject: Conservation buyers for water rights?

Gens asks whether entities other than cities could buy water rights or pay for conservation efforts and then use the water rights to keep streams flowing. This would seem to have some appeal to a rafting company, to fishermen, or to environmental groups. Perhaps it would be a way the federal government could pay for some of the water that it wants to keep in streams for endangered fish.

Here are some of the problems with the idea:

1) The laws of most western states do not allow other than a state agency to "own" water rights for instream flows. An investor interested in maintaining instream flows would have no way to insist that other water users did not divert the water saved by, say, lining irrigation ditches, unless the investor had enforceable water rights.

2) Proposals to change these laws are fiercely resisted. This just happened in Colorado. One approach is to allow water trusts to hold rights. Oregon and Washington have done that.

3) Even with legal changes that would allow private parties to enforce instream water rights, the investments will be limited because it is hard fro groups to organize people and raise money from them. "Free riders" will hold back and let others contribute to the fund, then enjoy the benefits by fishing in the stream once it is restored. So we need some way to organize people.

A soultion is public funding to help buy rights (or make conservation improvements) so more water can flow in streams. There was a very promising initiative in the latest Farm Bill that would have made hundreds of millions of dollars available for paying willing sellers for water the government needs for endangered species. Remarkably, western Senators fought [i]against[/i] this, arguing that it would be a "federal water grab." So now the US has to regulate the use of rights, effectively getting use of the water without paying!

Lynn Tominaga
Location: Idaho
Posted: Sat May 18, 2002 7:55 pm   Subject: Water & Technology

David,

As you know, the main reason for opposition from Western Senators on the recent farm bill concerning the federal government buying and owning state water rights is that Congress has always deferred the management of water quantity to the states. Most states do not recognize the federal government as a legal entity that can hold a state water right because of 10th amendment. If the federal agencies would waive their soveign immunity then I believe some states would allow for the purchase and ownership of these water rights.

The other reason for opposition in recent farm bill was the language concerning the Endangered Species Act. Two major concerns expressed about the the ESA was that local fisheriers or recreational opportunities were not the first priority of the legislation. The second was that no upper limit on the amount $ paid per acre/foot was set for the water thus a very senior water right could be purchased at any cost. This senior right would then become an in-stream flow which could be used to affect junior water right holders throughout the river system. The concern expressed by the states and the Western Attorney Generals was that you have an entity who doesn't or wouldn't have the interest in the state's economic or public interest because the water right could only be used for the protection of the endangered speices and not any other purpose.

David Getches
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posted: Mon May 20, 2002 10:22 am   Subject: Federal purchase of instream flows

Lynn's thoughtful reply advances the debate. Yet, it still seems short-sighted of some of our western Senators to refuse federal money to buy instream flows.

How many times have we heard people say "Well, if the feds want water for the blankety-blank endangered fish, let 'em buy water rights." And that's just what was proposed in the Farm Bill.

True, Congress has generally deferred to the states to allocate and administer water. And Senator Reid and others tried to include in the Farm Bill every possible statement to the effect that the federal government's instream flow rights would be state water rights and subject to state law. Still, that was not enough for some western Senators.

It is true that any senior rights purchased by the feds would be superior to junior rights. That's the nature of western water law. Of course an irrigation right could not be changed to instream uses if that would adversely affect any water rights, senior or junior. Beyond that legal limitation, seniors can exercise their property rights in water to the fullest and are not subject to public interest limitations or sympathy for juniors. The federal government would be like any other water user in this respect.

I don't see why a federal waiver of sovereign immunity would be necessary. If the state administers the feds' water rights, they can be shut off just like anyone else. No need to sue.

So, I guess I am still surprised that the Farm Bill provision failed.

Jeff Fassett
Posted: Mon May 20, 2002 4:37 pm

I also admit to not understanding the reluctance to allow, open market, willing seller/willing buyer transactions, with federal dollars, as long as they do follow and comply with state law. The federal government holds many water rights in the State of Wyoming that I am familar with. Every USBR project applied for and received a state awarded permit to build a reservoir and to divert the natural flows of a river for irrigation or other purposes. Likewise, the Bureau of Land Mangement has securred state water rights for stock watering ponds located on federal land, the Fish and Wildlife Service holds state awarded water rights for ponds and other activities within federal wildlife reserves and the list goes on. And all these water rights are routinely subjected to state law administration for making changes to these water rights or seeking a priority call against junior priority rights; just like any other appropriator. And as David suggests, any changes to these water rights are subject to the "no injury" standand of review provided by state law.

What they cannot hold, nor can anyone else, under curent state law, is a instream flow water right. As such, to aquire and change the use of an existing water right to instream flow, would require the State of Wyoming active participation and involvement to hold that particular type of water right. If however, such federal/state cooperative arrangements can be established there is nothing to prevent these types of creative solutions to be presented to address serious shortages, with state law and the prior appropriation doctrine.

Steven Malloch, Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited
Location: Arlington VA
Posted: Tue May 21, 2002 8:30 am   Subject: Senate Water Conservation Provisions

I must jump into this thread - I had a hand in the water conservation provisions in the Senate version of the Farm Bill. We tried to craft a program that deferred to state authority over water rights. Yes there was a requirement that the states decide to use the program (any state that found it distasteful could simply opt not to apply), and have a system that allowed the state to create and defend the instream rights. However, the actual rights would be held by the states. All enforcement decisions were to be made by the states. The idea was to have as few strings on the federal money as possible, precisely to avoid the firestorm over states rights that would otherwise ensue. The priority afforded to ESA issues was in part to justify the federal dollars spent - if the federal laws created the regulatory problems, it seems appropriate to have federal dollars help solve them first.

Of course, the firestorm overtook the provision anyway. And like many political firestorms over water issues, the level of disinformation was remarkable.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done on conservation. Yes there are return flow, impacts on third parties and conjunctive use issues inherent in increasing efficiency. But agriculture is still the bulk of water use in the west - until we can make that use more efficient, where it needs to be efficient, we will be hampered in our ability to address the many other water issues.
In much of the west water quantity is a zero sum game, increasing efficiency is a way to get more benefit from a finite supply.

Lynn Tominaga
Location: Idaho
Posted: Thu May 23, 2002 6:27 pm   Subject: Technology & Management

As John Keys said, "You cannot make new water, what you must do is manage the present supply to its best and higest use." We have the technology and the ability to have a managed recharge program for most of the major river systems in the West. An aquifer recharge program would sustain or increase ground-water levels and the outflow from springs discharging to major tributaries and rivers. The general design calls for the aquifer system to be used as a storage reservoir that would capture excess flows from the the river during high-flow periods, mainly winter and spring, and release the stored water back to the river throughout the remainder of the year.

Water would be diverted from the river only when streamflow exceeds irrigation demand, hydropower rights, and instream flow requirements. The excess water could be conveyed to recharge basins, through existing canals or other systems where it would infiltrate the subsurface and enter a regional aquifer system, raising ground-water levels. The susequent release of stored water as spring discharge would raise the base flow rate in the river during low-flow periods. Now I understand this won't work in all river systems but where it is possible, the obstalces of federal, state, and local level rules and regulation should be removed or streamlined to help manage this limited water supply.

Bill Loftus
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posted: Sun May 26, 2002 11:57 pm   Subject: Groundwater recharge

Undertaking large scale groundwater recharge may be an attractive, and even a workable idea, in some places. It seems, though, that there would have to be pilot projects conducted to find out what the qualities are of the water is that reaches the water table.

Past experience on any number of projects involving natural resources, and water in particular, shows that a heavy emphasis on technology can lead us down some pretty precarious paths. Teton Dam was a project that had the support necessary to win authorization and funding, but it was the wrong project at the wrong place and time.

While groundwater recharge may have merit, and may work, it also places more demands on river systems that are already overtaxed.

Chad Okrusch
Posted: Mon May 27, 2002 9:38 am   Subject: Technology will not add more water to the hydrological cycle

True, new approaches to irrigation can reduce impacts to our river systems, but, they can't put more water in the natural hydrological cycle. What water exists is already overallocated--any technological 'fix' will be insignificant in the big picture at best. That said, I'm not against continuing to seek technological improvements--especially on the stream scale. But, its a tragic mistake to focus limited resources too heavily on the search for a technological magic bullet.

Great topic.

Bill Loftus
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posted: Mon May 27, 2002 11:21 pm   Subject: magic bullets are hard to find

It is hard to argue that a magic bullet can solve the water issue, or any other involving natural resources and public policy.

Still . . . Irrigated agriculture has already come a long way in incorporating some pretty sophisticated science into its practices. ET is familiar to most farmers these days not because of Spielberg´s loveable extraterrestrial but because evapo-transpiration is an important measure of plants' water needs. Automated phone lines are available in many areas so producers can dial in and determine their crops´ water use on any given day. Some farmers are investing in their own weatehr stations to gather the kind of information they want for their precise needs. Precision farming is itself a sign of agriculture´s maturing.

In a water short year like this one across southern Idaho and in many other places, these sorts of efficiency improvements will go a long way toward determining who makes it and who doesn´t in the farming community. But if it works in a year when water supplies simply may not be there, why not continue to apply them in more normal years and free up water to address other needs.

If the aquifer recharge scenario lives up to hopes for it without generating other problems, use some of the water for it. Or allow producers who can get by with less to sell some to a water bank to advance salmon recovery efforts. The bottom line is agriculture needs to increase its efficiency of water use during times of shortage. There can be additional benefits beyond surviving the immediate crisis as well.

Lynn Tominaga
Location: Idaho
Posted: Tue May 28, 2002 10:13 am   Subject: Recharge and Idaho

The source of recharge water will always be the main problem with managed recharge. In order for water to be available for recharge, the water must be physically present in the river at the point of diversion, all water rights and instream flow requirements must be staisfied, and sufficient unused canal capacity must be present.

The potential sites for recharge must be compatible with existing institutional controls on water and land use in the area of recharge. Several of the institutional controls stem from laws and regulations associated with environmental protection, usch as groundj-waer quality, surface-water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Other considerations include water rights, proerty ownership, and land management policy both federal and state. Environmental impacts vary with location and timing of diversions relative to flow conditions.

Jeff Fassett
Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:58 pm

Lynn makes some good arguments about recharge of ground water aquifers. A number of project around the west are under way or study to evaluate these options as another water supply management alternative, that also avoids the higher initial construction budgets of other types of projects. The source of water is often problematic but there are still modest projects that can help store water for future use. These project do require sufficient techicnal study concerning the receiving aquifer characteristics. Often the receiving formation is a limiting factor in areas around Wyoming.

Recharge of surplus ground water withdrawls associated with the Coalbed Methane production in north central Wyoming is currently being investigated as a possible solution for disposing the surplus water, rather that simply releasing the water to the ground surface. The ground water discharges are creating some water quality problems for local ranchers so reinjection to an aquifer is becoming a vialble alterntive despite the the increased costs.