NY Times Editorial - Ogallala

I ran across an editorial in the New York Times published yesterday (December 1, 2011) that was not very complimentary to water management in the High Plains - state or local.  I felt compelled to comment, but it appears that the NY Times does not value any further discussion as there was no opportunity to do so - odd.  So I thought I'd just blog about it instead.  The title was "Running Dry on the Great Plains" and was written by Julene Bair of Longmont, Colorado. 

I happen to know Julene as she is originally from NW Kansas (Sherman County).  We actually corresponded for a while on groundwater issues and have even discussed said issues in my office a time or two.  I considered Julene to be very thoughtful and she seemed quite diligent in her fact gathering.  The questions she asked me were good ones, but tended to be focused on her groundwater and irrigation experiences in Sherman County - one of the most depleted areas of GMD 4.  I feel I answered her questions honestly but always tried to broaden the scope of where I sensed she was wanting to go - damn all irrigation and reclaim the groundwater to pre-human use levels.  I stressed that all of GMD 4 was not as dire as Sherman County, and, the value of local control was the ability to bring about any outcome the majority of the landowners and water users wanted - as long as they took the responsibility and spent their efforts working on the issues.

If you read the editorial she claims that water controls imposed by local water districts (run by irrigators themselves and by state legislators dependent on the farm vote) have been minimal at best.  She is entitled to her opinion but I would respond that if she's right, it's simply because collectively the locals have not embraced their role effectively enough to do otherwise.  Since our discussions of perhaps 6 years or so ago, GMD 4 has crafted an enhanced management process where local subunits in the district are encouraged and empowered to go well beyond the existing district regulations, which while we're on the subject, had long ago stopped new development, appropriately controlled water right changes, metered all wells, controlled irrigation tailwater and lots more. 

Two such subunits were defined in Sherman County and both of them met twice and then decided to do nothing more.  Over in Sheridan County their subunit is proposing the most aggressive enhanced management proposal yet in the state of Kansas.  I don't think the fact that enhanced management is not happening in Sherman County means that local control is a failure - at least not as much as apparently Julene does.  I guess it could sound like I'm pointing the finger of blame toward Julene and her ilk for not addressing these problems, when I'm sure they're thinking "That's the GMD's job."  I guess the point is that in our local management scheme, right or wrong, it's both our jobs.  The GMD has created the subunit ability to make things happen via local involvement - all we need now are the interested players. 

The only issue I think Julene got really wrong is her claim that we are wasting the water we use - by growing corn which uses fertilizers and pesticides that pollute.  It is clear we're not using water the way she thinks it should be used, but I don't think this by itself constitutes waste.  To most water users, leaving the water in the ground doing nothing is a waste.  The fact is, neither of these uses is a waste - they are both political choices that someone has to make.  Now I return to the issue of local control.  See how important it really is?

Julene, let's keep talking.

The Ogallala Gets a Little Play

It's not often that an aquifer gets mentioned in popular culture - books, movies and the like, but our favorite friend the Ogallala Aquifer has shown up in several cases.  Keep in mind there have been endless reports and scientific writings and books on the aquifer, but I'm talking popular culture.

One of the early mentions was in James A. Michener's epic novel "Texas" published in 1985.  The final chapter (Power and Change) features our Ogallala.

In 1990 the second Dust Bowl in David Brin's futuristic novel, "Earth" is partly blamed on the dewatering of the Ogallala.

We even made it into the world of Marvel Comics when Spider-Man deals with a plot for world domination that includes this vast source of freshwater.  Of course, I wasn't worried a bit!

The aquifer also figures prominently in the novel "That Old Ace in the Hole" by E. Annie Proulx - published in 2002.  The hero is sent to a small Texas town to evaluate land for a mega-hog production company.  And we all know what most Texas land is worth without water under it.

And finally, it forms part of the historical background of the plot of the Canadian television mini-series "H2O".  The actual water subjects in these two mini-series are the Great Lakes, but they are being looked at as a recharge source to the vast Ogallala and other US water supplies.

There are probably others out there, so if you run across any, you can add to this developing list.  Who knew groundwater could be so interesting?

Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee Meeting 1

Well, the 21 member OAAC met earlier today in Dodge City, Kansas.  It was an impressive beginning with 19 of the 21 appointed members in attendance - along with 4 Kansas Legislators, 2 state agency directors, 4 groundwater management district managers and about a dozen other, interested folks.  The agenda was true to form with the two potential statutory changes getting discussed:  a) IGUCAs; and b) "use it or lose it" (water right abandonments).

The water right abandonments issue took most of the time as it was clearly the more complex and far-reaching issue. In the end, the committee passed a motion that the current statute KSA 82a-718 (d) be amended such that the requirement of maintaining the diversion works for non-used water rights in closed areas of the state be eliminated.  Basically, this means that in closed areas of the state non-use of a water right is lawfully due and sufficient cause for non-use - period.  This was done even though everyone understood that it completely eliminated any ability of the state to abandon a water right and forfeit it it back to the public domain.  Said another way, the only possibility of any water right abandonment in closed areas of the state would be through voluntary abandonment by the water right owner.  The motion passed 16 for and three against.  It was also agreed that considering additional GMD authority to address this issue through their management programs should be re-discussed at a later time.

The IGUCA issue was in concept a law change allowing a GMD to submit a complete enhanced management proposal to the chief engineer simultaneously with its IGUCA request.  Under these circumstances, the substantive public hearing required by current law would be limited to the GMD/local proposal.  Following the hearing, the chief engineer would have only one of 3 options:  a)  approve the proposal in its entirety and generate the IGUCA order; b) close the hearing and reject the proposal;  or c) continue the hearing and return the proposal to the GMD/locals for corrections with cites for every instance where it is not consistent with state law or the GMD management program, or, falls short of the requirements of a minimal management proposal.  Following discussion, and questions, a motion was unanimously passed to support this statutory change as presented, with a suggestion that some time constraints be considered for the chief engineer's post-hearing decision.

[UPDATE:  The above IGUCA discussion eventually became the Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) concept.  This was very early discussion before the concept even had a name.] 

Discussion next turned to possible issues for the next meeting.  One of the issues suggested was the prior appropriation system of water rights itself - the most fundamental concept of Kansas water law.  As noted before in this blog, I never heard this mentioned at the Governor's Summit, but because the state characterized several comments into the common topic of:  "Examine all water laws and regulations", this  and any other law or regulation now seems to be fair game.  Was this idea really sported at the Summit, or did the state take too liberal poetic license with the process?

Anyway, the next meeting is set for August 23 - most likely in Scott City.  The Farm Bill implications to, and potentials for water conservation in Kansas will be one of the agenda items - in preparation for Senator Pat Roberts' field hearing on the 2012 Farm Bill in Wichita, KS on August 25.  More later.

Governor's Water Summit - Colby, KS

Kansas Governor Brownback spent most of the day today in Colby listening to 350 or so Kansas water users discuss and offer ideas about the state's most prolific aquifer - the Ogallala.  The questions were:  What do you think the future of the Ogallala is?  What roles should individuals play?  and How can Governor Brownback's administration help achieve whatever goals are desired?

After three framing talks - on the current hydrologic status of the Ogallala (by Kansas Geological Survey); an economic perspective (by Kansas State University); and aspects of a common-pool resource (by Kansas State University) - a roundtable of 14 invited persons representing a wide variety of water users across the state introduced themselves and briefly gave their suggestions on Ogallala concerns from their perspectives.

The next session was breakout discussion groups of about 25 persons each who were asked to answer the original summit questions.  Moderators captured the ideas and comments without attribution, which were then individually voted upon - the highest counted ideas going forward.

From my discussions with many participants throughout the day, I'd say several ideas were universal enough that I'd guess they will be likely survivors.  These were (in no particular order):  1)  Local participation and involvement was critical; 2) one approach/regulation/solution does not fit all - wide variability of situations will require a wide variety of approaches; 3) the state's current policy of "use it or lose it" should be eliminated as a disincentive to water conservation; 4) ways must be found to grow the ag economy while simultaneously reducing water use; 5) federal farm programs and other federal efforts need tweaking to accommodate Kansas' specific economic needs; 6) a more user-friendly intensive groundwater use control area (IGUCA) process would be beneficial to fostering more use of this potentially valuable tool; 7)  value-added ag activity is beneficial; 8) water quality is equally important to water quantity; and 9) more flexibility in use of water (specifically in irrigated ag and municipal use) can help conserve water.

In any event, all the discussion points and final ideas will be posted on the Kansas Water Office website.  It is important to know that these ideas are just the beginning of these discussions.  They, and any new ones provided will be considered by the newly appointed Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee (OAAC) under the Kansas Water Authority.  This committee and it's work will also be posted on the KWO webpage.  All in all, I was pleased with the effort and am thinking at this time that some positive things are likely to come out of the effort.

Closing comments:  I'm still not convinced that the "use it or lose it" is as big a disincentive to water conservation as this very large group seemed to express, but there will be time to address it.  This issue is simply broader than characterized in this 1/2 day session and is worthy of additional discussion.  I was also surprised at the number of non-Kansas folks in attendance - a smattering of folks from Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas that I personally know and saw - and there most likely were more.  I felt that the roundtable participants used far too much time in their self-introductions - time that could have been used in the breakout sessions that were rushed - at least ours was.  Other than that I was pleased with the event and very appreciative of the Governor's time in beginning these important discussions.  There will be more later...

High Plains Information

The Kansas Geological Survey has a great website for all things geology, water, energy and education within Kansas.  But that's not all! 

I'm proud to highlight their High Plains Aquifer Information Network pages which include links to the entire High Plains Aquifer - a one-stop shopping experience for data and information - at least that's the plan.  It is a work in progress, but it has progressed quite a bit over the past 2 years. 

If you're interested in the High Plains Aquifer, you might give this site a spin.  Might save you a lot of time rather than snooping around in and about 8 states.  And don't forget to look at their other pages as well.

New Ogallala Study Starting Up

A four-year, $250,000 grant from the National Science Foundation has been provided to Kansas University and $1.2 million to Michigan State University to co-study and clarify the future prospects of the Ogallala (links are press releases by both schools on this study).

It is no secret that total pumping from the aquifer many times exceeds recharge - even though these imbalances vary quite a bit from area to area within all of the states.  Irrigation is the support for one of the most abundant agricultural zones in the world, producing alfalfa, corn, sorghum, soybean, cotton, sunflowers and wheat, in addition to supplying water for numerous, and in some cases, very large feedlots.

The study is designed to look at not only the hydrologic aspects of the aquifer, but also economic and environmental factors.  A number of short and long-term scenarios from hydrological and socioeconomic perspectives will be explored hoping to answer questions about what the effect climate change and land-use changes might also have on the aquifer.  And even how the water users themselves may respond to changes in technology, economics the climate and declining water levels.

Kind of sounds like a repeat (but on a much larger scale) of the hydrologic and economic modeling we're already doing for our portion of the aquifer, but which is currently stalled due to funding issues.  I wish them luck and will be interested in their results.

TransCanada and the Keystone XL Pipeline

TransCanada has filed for a US permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline to move crude oil from the oil sands of northern Alberta, Canada to Cushing, OK and then on to US Gulf Coast.  The pipeline capacity will start at 591,000 barrels per day (bpd), is proposed at 700,000 bpd, and will increase to 900,000 to 1.1 million bpd - depending on the source.  The pipeline route is shown on the map here. (click to enlarge).

The issues are many.  Some of the hottest are:

1.  The product is dirty and continues to promote reliance on fossil fuels;
2.  The steel being used is from China and is weaker than US steel;
3.  It will cross the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska posing an environmental risk;
4.  It will create 13,000 jobs and reduce US reliance on Middle East oil;
5.  Pipelines are [most dangerous / safest]  way to transport crude;
6.  Tar sands crude is more caustic than regular crude;
7.  There is no real need for this much extra transmission capacity;
8.  The extra transmission capacity will provide important transmission redundancy;
9.  The monitoring is insufficient;
10.  TransCanada has no effective spill response plan;
11.  And the list goes on and on!

The public reaction is very divided.  The New York Times has opposed the permit based on environmental concerns.  The Washington Post has equally supported the project on jobs and reduced reliance on foreign oil.  Union labor supports it - environmental groups are generally opposed.  And the horror stories abound.  The Post cites a 800,000 barrel spill in Michigan last summer from a similar pipeline operated by a competitor of TransCanada.  Of course, according to TransCanada, this pipeline will be state of the art - bigger, faster, stronger.  And besides, the vast majority of pipeline leaks are small - most involving less than three barrels, 80% involving less than 50 barrels, and less than 0.5% involving more than 10,000 barrels. To move the same volume of oil into the U.S. by train would result in 50 railway accidents for every pipeline accident (according to Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration).  Here is a very recent list of myths and facts prepared by TransCanada  Who ya gonna believe?

The permit application has been promoted, supported, maligned, cussed and sued and yet it continues getting consideration and may eventually be approved - albeit with some strings attached - like enhanced monitoring, job concessions, whatever.  Kansans who are opposed are really down on the project - they believe state officials sold them out by offering the company multiple years of tax abatements - amounting to many, many dollars of lost state revenue.  It's not going to get political, is it?

All in all, I'd have to say that I oppose the pipeline.  As much as I appreciate the jobs and reduced oil reliance, I think continued reliance on fossil fuels is a mistake.  The same amount of money invested in wind or solar or other alternative energies would in the long run be the wiser choice. (Boy, am I glad I didn't write this two weeks ago and include nuclear).

There is a bunch of info out there if you're interested in more - just Google "TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline" and settle in for a long research session.

Here We Go With the Generalizations - Again...

I wish folks could make it more clear in their writings on the Ogallala Aquifer of specifically where they are referring to.  Take the recent (March 15, 2011) article on the Ogallala - "The Next Oil", by Johnathan R. Grammer.  He spends a good deal of effort describing the entire Ogallala (all 8 states worth), and makes a few statements about the Ogallala in the Panhandle of Texas that easily could be true of anywhere in the aquifer.  Then he starts off a new paragraph that seems to be describing the entire Ogallala again:  

"..the Ogallala does not recharge. Simply stated, while most aquifers enjoy the benefit of "recharge zones" ... the same replenishment due the Ogallala is denied it either by evaporation or is diverted by the underground and surface geology. What results is a finite water supply much like an oil and gas reservoir. Once it is depleted, it is gone forever." 

What?  While he likely may be discussing smaller, isolated areas of the Ogallala in the Texas Panhandle, this certainly can't be true for the entire Ogallala.  But he says it is.  I happen to believe the Ogallala does recharge in Kansas - albeit a tad bit on the conservative side - but that water got there somehow.

" As a result [of no recharge], the Ogallala Aquifer has been depleted by crop irrigation and domestic use at a rate equaling 1.5 feet a year in some parts. Scientists have speculated, though, such a possibility represents a worst-case scenario, that the aquifer itself may be dry beyond utility within 25 years. Others have speculated that its supply will last for at least another 100 years."

Again, no inkling of where he is speaking, but his words say this is true of the entire Ogallala Aquifer.  Our portion of the aquifer in Graham County, KS is as full or fuller than it was in 1977.  There are even larger areas of our groundwater management district that have a solid 250 year life time projected.  In Nebraska there are large areas of the Ogallala that still have 1200 feet of water and are not declining.  This statement cannot apply to the entire aquifer.

While the Ogallala Aquifer does have its "OMG" overdrafted areas, and there are eye-opening overdrafts in many other areas of the aquifer in virtually every state, you simply cannot describe the entire aquifer in such sweeping terms.  And the range of conditions that exist make average values just about as useless as well.  Our average Ogallala decline rate in GMD 4 is .5 feet per year, but we range from almost 2 feet/yr to areas that are not declining at all. 

And the consequence of this is?  I was on #agchat tonight (topic was "water") and the following conversation came up regarding the declining Ogallala:

She:  "A friend & cotton farmer on the TX High Plains had CNN out on his place today."

He:  "Do you know what the CNN story is concerning? Thanks!"

She:  "yes, its on the Ogallala aquifer. what's happening with that water table, what farmers are doing."

The press has been focused of late on Happy, TX, a place smack dab in the middle of the most serious decline area of the Southern High Plains Aquifer in Texas.  See here;  and here; and here.  No doubt the CNN crew was also interested in this region.  These articles all read like the entire Ogallala does not recharge at all; and is dropping so fast there may be only 10 years of pumping left.  Doesn't it sound like this is what the agchatter took away from her sources?

The USGS Says:  "The areas of significant water-level declines are not common to the entire region. In fact, the area of the greatest water-level declines (25 feet to more than 150 feet) is focused in...15 percent of the entire High Plains aquifer area."  (USGS Circular 1243, 2004)

Total water in storage in 2005 was about 2,925 million acre-feet, which was a decline of about 253 million acre-feet (or 9 percent) since predevelopment. (USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3029 by V.L. Mcguire)

While the Happy, Texas area has obviously taken a considerable amount of water from the aquifer in their specific area, a 9% depletion since pre-development (1950 in most cases) does not sound like the end of the world for most of the remaining aquifer area to me.  Indicative of a serious problem - Yes, but immediate disaster - No.  Future articles written I hope are situated and qualified better.  These writers all need to be aware that many non-Texas folks are reading this material too, and need more accurate and less sensational material.

NW Kansas (Ogallala) Hydrology 101

Basically an aquifer is any underground formation that stores and can transmit pore water to a well in volumes that can be used. In nature, aquifers come in all shapes and sizes and usefulness. They can consist of fractured shales that yield just a few gallons per minute or day, to productive gravels that can yield multi-thousands of gallons per minute. Here in NW Kansas, our Ogallala Aquifer is middle of the road when compared to the possibility of aquifer extremes.

It’s also important to understand that even within a single aquifer, there easily can be considerable variability due to the aquifer make-up itself – how it was deposited, what materials it is made up of, how much cementing has occurred, how thick it is, how well or poorly sorted it is – you get the idea. Remember, groundwater exists in the relatively minute pores in between the aquifer material. Usually only 10% - 25% of a non-artesian aquifer’s saturated volume is water, and rarely is an entire non-artesian aquifer fully saturated. All this to make the point that a volume of water taken out of an aquifer will cause a water table decline that appears much larger.

It’s also possible that the aquifer characteristics change with depth. If they do, taking out a specific volume of water year after year (in a declining situation) will likely result in different rates of decline as different sections of the aquifer are dewatered. Add to this dynamic the variations from year to year in how much natural recharge is taking place from precipitation, underflows and/or leakage from other aquifers both above and below and you can see that it's no simple task to correlate withdrawals with changes in aquifer levels.

And what makes the system work? Gravity. The land surface, aquifer and water table in our NW Kansas portion of the Ogallala are all tilted slightly to the East. This means the groundwater elevation West of Colby is higher than it is to the East. This gradient – usually about 10 - 15 feet per mile – means the water is naturally moving through the aquifer pore spaces to the East (down gradient). The rate of this flow is dependent on the gradient and the interconnectedness of the aquifer pores – the steeper the slope and the more interconnected the pores are, the faster the flow rate. At our natural slope, our groundwater is moving about 75 feet per year. It’s our situation - small and fairly restricted connectivity between pore spaces and a relatively flat gradient - that dictate well yields, the size and shape of pumping cones, how fast the system flushes and how long contamination persists.

I hope this fairly general description has been helpful. If there are other aspects of groundwater hydrology you’d like to know about, don’t hesitate to ask.

"Time Running out for the Ogallala" Article

Dave Thier just posted an AOL.news item on the Ogallala Aquifer that is the typical gloom and doom approach - the implication is that the entire Ogallala is doomed to go dry in 20 years or less.  The picture here is from the article, and is identified as being an irrigation system near Hoxie, KS - within our GMD here in NW Kansas. 

While not stated as such in this article, I wonder if the picture is presented by the author as an example of the wasteful irrigation methods being used that are the cause of the doom cited in the article.  This is usually the case in most pieces I read on this subject.  It could also be that Mr. Thier intended nothing more than to supply a striking picture of an irrigation system to add interest to his piece - it is a nice photo.  If this is the case then I apologize for overreacting.

In any event, this kind of irrigation in GMD 4 is rare - in fact, this is the only big gun system we staff at GMD 4 are aware of.  Secondly, this photo was taken along the tree-lined banks of the Solomon River East of Hoxie - the water source being the alluvial aquifer associated with the Solomon - not the Ogallala.  Thirdly, the irrigated fields in this area are very small and irregular and don't lend themselves to other more common irrigation systems.  And forthly (and finally) I must say again that inefficient irrigation is NOT the cause of the declines in any aquifer we have in NW Kansas.  It is the consumptive crop water use that occurs virtually equally under every irrigation system that is the cause.

Anyway, back to the reason for this blog.  While many areas of the Ogallala are declining faster than most would think prudent, this is not the case everywhere.  Our GMD average decline rate in the Ogallala for the past 30 years has been .6 feet per year.  The range is from 2 feet per year to areas that are increasing in saturated thickness.  We are in an area of the Ogallala that I think is on the low side of all the average statistics cited for the full aquifer - and certainly far better off than all the areas the press likes to focus on - these being the worst of the worst.

Anyway, it'd be refreshing if the press would spend a little more time characterizing the aquifer more accurately so that their readers get a truer sense of the situation.  Of course, in the end, it's usually a matter of reader perspective.  If you find any level of decline appalling, then our condition is also incredually unacceptable.  Comments?