A New Spin on Crop Circles

                              REALLY!?

This ad picture from an irrigation pivot company implies that this pattern of irrigation center pivots goes on for a while, and should be replicated everywhere possible.  Well, I don't know many places in the world where this kind of concentrated water use would be all that intelligent.  There probably are some, but not around my neck of the woods.  So, wherever this photo is, I'm guessing there is a local water supply under some level of stress.  Well managed irrigation development is a good thing, but limits to that development are exceeded more often than not, which stresses the water supply - be it ground or surface water.  I personally think the ad would have been just as effective if a more reasonable pattern of pivot development had been selected.  It would seem more intelligent to me, anyway.

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...

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear KS Case

A U.S. Supreme Court decision last week will reopen a Kansas lawsuit against Nebraska on the Republican River.  At issue is the water use by Nebraska can and has exceeded the compact  - particularly in 2005 and 2006.  Kansas is arguing that Nebraska has not done enough to reduce its water use to stay within the compact every year.  Kansas agrees the compact has been met in the last 3 years, but only because of very wet conditions and lower irrigation demand.  In 2005 and 2006 the compact was exceeded, and it will be again as soon as normal or drier conditions return.

Meanwhile, Nebraska continues to implement water conservation efforts.  One example is the use of soil moisture sensors in the Lower Republican Natural Resource District (LRNRD) where it's been reported that 300 sets of these sensors have been sold so far - through a $780,000.00 cost-share program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative and the LRNRD. 

Soil moisture sensors can be used for several purposes.  One use is that they will tell the irrigators to stop pumping when their irrigation water gets to the bottom of the crop root zone, with the thinking that the extra water they had been applying (before the sensors) will be saved.  They can also be used to manage deficit irrigation water very accurately.  The problem is that the first use does not reduce consumptive water use while the second use will - to some degree.

In all fairness, Nebraska is implementing other conservation efforts as well - in various locations up and down the Republican River - and some of it designed to reduce consumptive water use.  I think Kansas' issue is not that nothing is being done, but that not enough real water conservation is being done compared to the possible Compact exceedences. 

In Compact compliance issues, the only relevent number is the consumptive use of the Nebraska irrigators.    Eliminating the inefficient water use = recharge (first use of soil moisture sensors) does not lessen the water being used by the crops.  The second use, will - depending on how much deficit irrigation takes place or is required.  I'm certain the Supreme Court will be aware of water conservation efforts that work for Compact compliance and those that don't.

Limited Irrigation Insurance Coverage?

A number of areas in Kansas are already, or poised soon, to see reduced irrigation applications for crops due to a variety of reasons including regulatory compliance, well yield reductions, groundwater control areas, enhanced management efforts and the like.

Applying less than the full crop water needs is called “limited” or “deficit” irrigation, and Kansas is actually encouraging such irrigation as an important water conservation tool.  Our developing groundwater models are showing us that reduced irrigation can be a significant reduction in water use - and if done correctly can be accomplished with less economic impact than other conservation approaches for the same amount of water savings. I've blogged about this before, but basically the last few acre-inches applied to an irrigated crop are the least profitable, so these are the inches that should be targeted for conservation gains if economic concerns are important.  This means deficit irrigation.

Crop insurance plays a part in all of this because it's an important risk management tool for crop producers.  The problem is, currently there is no crop insurance for limited or deficit irrigation - a field may be insured as fully irrigated or as dryland.  Thus the risk factor of deficit irrigating, if one has to, or purposely chooses to do so, looms large.

Not only does dryland crop insurance not adequately cover the production or revenue losses a producer could face with a limited irrigated crop, but it also doesn’t provide as much collateral for the bank, when seeking next year’s loan, as would occur with a limited irrigated crop insurance.  This alone is another reason to  provide this new tool.

Kansas, along with Nebraska and Colorado, has been working with personnel from the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) Regional Field Office, and the USDA RMA in Kansas City to develop and offer a pilot program of limited irrigation insurance coverage.  The USDA – RMA has given a tentative approval to develop and offer limited irrigated crop insurance in Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado, perhaps as soon as 2012, if certain products, procedures and milestones can be met.

Agricultural engineers in all 3 states have developed crop production curve tables, also known as Irrigation Yield Adjustment Tables. These tables are expected to serve for the production guarantee during the transition of getting four or more years of limited irrigated crop harvests.  We are fully supporting RMA's efforts as the enhanced management areas of GMD 4 are going to be instant recipients of the program if they implement their reduced water usage plans in 2012 through 2016.

AWEP Update

The dust is starting to settle and as of today we have 15 AWEP contracts signed to set aside 2,324 irrigated acres for the next 6 years - within 5 of our 6 designated high priority areas.  One of these contracts is requesting a waiver from NRCS headquarters which may or may not be approved, so worst case scenario is 14 contracts involving 2,010 irrigated acres.

We have cooperated with the Kansas Water Transition Assistance Program (WTAP) and the NW Kansas Groundwater Conservation Foundation whose programs will be providing the balance of the funding needed to permanently retire the irrigated acres - for at least a subset of the 14-15 AWEP contracts who are so inclined.  The WTAP application sign-up period will be October 1 - November 15.  This program is a competitive bid process to permanently retire one's water right. With AWEP already providing a majority of the cost necessary to convert irrigated acres to dry land production, our applicants should compete fairly well.  WTAP and the Conservation Foundation programs are also a multi-year efforts, so we should be able to phase these programs together for a bit longer.

The 30 or so unfunded AWEP applications this year will automatically move into next years program (the second year of a 3-year program) which could be an additional $2.666 million made available.  We'll have to wait and see how Congress responds.  We hope next year's WTAP program and the Conservation Foundation will also provide appropriate funding so we can continue the permanent retirements which represent the true conservation we sought from the outset.

As I've always said, the surest way to conserve water is to not pump it.  And not pumping it also makes water management a lot easier!

AWEP - Conservation Log - Day 27

I am amazed yet again at the veritable speed at which this program is coming together.  We have finalized the majority of decision-points related to implementing our conservation proposal of transitioning irrigated acres out of irrigation, and are now seriously servicing the questions of potential applicants.  And there is a lot of interest and a lot of questions.  There is also a program eligibility change which I corrected in my July 19 Blog article (previous entry below).

We are confident that we can retire 2,000 irrigated acres within our 6 high priority areas in our first program year.  Keep in mind, these acres will be non-irrigated for 6 years only.  We are also hoping to leverage the state's Water Transition Assistance Program (WTAP) with this effort to permanently retire perhaps 800 of these acres in year 1. 

With 2 more years of AWEP funding available (pending Congressional funding and local participation) we'll eventually retire from 6,000 to 7,000 acres for the 6 years.  This activity should catch the attention and interest of the Kansas Legislature to fund WTAP sufficiently over the same 3-year period so we can continue making permanent conversions by leveraging the two programs.  If it doesn't, I can only conclude that our Legislature is actually disinterested in reducing groundwater use - regardless of what they pontificate otherwise.  Yes, I'm throwing the gauntlet down and challenging the Kansas Legislature to step up.  (Yeah, I'll bet they're really worried now.)

No seriously, I think we've put together a pretty responsible program to convert irrigated acres in our most critical areas - exactly what our state water plans says needs to be done - with the heavy lifting being done by the NRCS' AWEP program.  To not support this effort with state funds will be "penny wise and pound foolish" as Ben Franklin would say. We'll see.  

AWEP - Conservation Log: Day 19:

A bit more detail has come out on how the Partnership program is going to operate in our 6 HPA's.  Any irrigator within our 6 areas can now visit their local NRCS office and make application - again, to receive 5 years of payments per acre in lieu of not irrigating for 6 years.  The annual payments will be based on ones benchmark acres - average acres irrigated per year between 2005 and 2009.  Moreover, the benchmark acres must equal or exceed 66% 45%* of the authorized irrigated acres and must have been watered at least 2 of these 5 years.  Finally, the acres must have received at least 6 acre-inches of water applied.  These are the eligibility criteria.

All the eligible applications will then be ranked.  If your irrigated acres are from 70% 60%* to 79.9% of the authorized acres, you'll get additional points.  If from 80% to 89.9%, more points, and if more than 90%, more points yet.

If you applied from 8 - 12 13 acre-inches of water per acre (average over all years irrigated) you'll receive additional points.  If you applied more than 12 13 acre-inches per acre you'll receive more points.

Finally, if you had submitted an eligible Kansas Water Transition Assistance Program (WTAP) application  in the last go-around and were not accepted, you get additional points.

As you can see, this program is seeking to convert the acres that have been irrigated the most - hence will result in the most groundwater conservation.  I won't apologize for this although water users who have seriously reduced their water use over the past 5 years will tend to not fare as well - especially if they have eliminated acres to do so. 

A common question is what will happen to the water rights?  Being in a designated HPA, the water rights will be protected from non-use issues for the entire time and will be completely usable after the 6th year.  However, our intent remains to permanently convert the irrigated acres enrolled.  We will be seeking other programs to make this happen.  Bottom line:  If you are keenly interested in a permanent retirement, don't ignore this program just because it's temporary. 

Others ask about overlapped water rights. Overlapped water rights must be all enrolled to ensure water conservation.  Also, enrolling part of a single water right will not be allowed.

We've received calls or visits from folks in every HPA as of just a few minutes ago, so there appears to be sufficient interest.  We hope it continues.

NOTE:  * corrections are updates to the program rules that have been made after the original date of this post.  Blog corrections made by WAB on 07/27/2010

A Log of Our AWEP Experience

Over the next year I'll try to capture my experiences with the AWEP award we received earlier this month from NRCS.  For those who do not know, AWEP stands for Agricultural Water Enhancement Program.  It is a fairly new initiative within NRCS that was created in the 2008 Farm Bill.  It is actually part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which we'll discuss in a bit.  AWEP is a voluntary conservation initiative that provides financial and technical assistance to ag producers to implement ag water enhancement activities on land for the purposes of conserving surface and groundwater and improving water quality.

On July 2 it was announced that our proposal (from a partnership between GMD4, 4 county conservation districts, a county Farm Bureau group, and the Kansas Water Office) was awarded, and that in FY 2010 $2.666 million was being made available toward our plan - a 3-year, $9 million effort to permanently convert irrigated acres in our six high priority areas (HPAs) to non-irrigation uses - thus saving 100% of the groundwater irrigation use on these acres.

It must be noted here that we proposed to permanently convert acres with program payments between $1350 and $2250 per acre - depending on how much historic water had been used on them.  The acres with the most water used, would receive the highest payments.  Our proposed payment levels were based on just over 100 actual bid offerings from producers under a competitively bid water rights retirement program offered by Kansas last year. When awarded, we assumed that the entire program was approved.  This turned out NOT to be the case.

Remember that AWEP is implemented under the EQIP program - an on-going effort already with it's own rules.  Turns out that EQIP can only pay on the producer's lost income for adopting the conservation practice (converting irrigated acres to dry land production) and for only 5 years.  It was unlikely that any irrigator was going to give up irrigation forever for just 5, annual, lost income payments. Under these constraints, we requested that the award be changed to a 6-year irrigation set-aside for the same 5, annual, lost income payments.  NRCS approved. 

The temporary suspension of irrigation in our HPAs would help, but we were disappointed that permanent conversions would not be possible.  The fact is we were close to being disgusted that NRCS was good with paying $1100 an acre to not irrigate for 6 years, but not OK with paying $200 to $800 more an acre to conserve the water forever - all because of an EQIP rule.  To add insult to injury, NRCS also imposed an unbelievably short timeframe on this first year - setting an August 13, 2010 deadline for all producer applications. Recall, the program just got announced yesterday.

However, after more thought, we were wrong think that permanent conversions were out of reach and that AWEP was useless to us.  We now are embracing the AWEP award as a significant first step to this very goal - it'll just take another program or two to make it happen, and we have 5 years to craft whatever it is that we need.  And actually, since permanent conversions are off the table, the August 13 deadline is also not near as daunting.

In my next entry, I'll cover the details of our AWEP program and outline how we're expecting to work it with other programs to make these conservation efforts permanent.  As always, questions can be directed to me.