Whole Aquifer Management - The Ogallala

Over the span of my 35 year career the issue of an aquifer-wide Ogallala management plan has come up three times.  The most serious effort was begun in 1995 under the wing of the Great Plains Foundation (GPF) which was formed in 1995 and whose first 5 years in existence was to be dedicated to water.  The director was Lori Triplett from Overland Park, KS and her vision was large, but clearly promoting the development of a multi-state, Master Management Plan for the Ogallala Aquifer.

The first meeting was a large affair held at the University of Missouri-Kansas City on March 2 and 3, 1995.  Thirteen states were represented and just about everyone who was anyone (in the water world of the Ogallala) was there.  It's was the first time (and last time) I had seen most of the state engineers in one place discussing the Ogallala Aquifer.

After two days of fairly direct, moderated conversation, the decision was that there might be a role for a Master Plan, but it would be limited in scope to data and information sharing and research coordination.  There would be no groundwater management and/or regulatory elements even attempted.  And the decision was unanimous by the state representatives.     

I have been against an Ogallala Master Plan each time it's come up, for a number of reasons, a few of which remain:

1)  Each state has drastically different water laws;
2)  The extent and degree of the decline problems vary so widely;
3)  Groundwater movement is slow and more localized attention is required; and
4)  The impending increased Federal presence and role.


Oh, the GPF.  The Foundation went on to conduct four more annual symposia on the Ogallala as planned originally - 1996 at Colby Community College; 1997 at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln; 1998 at Texas Tech University and 1999 in Oklahoma City (hosted by Oklahoma State University).  I attended all the sessions and have copies of the proceedings if anyone is interested.  The Foundation still exists, but I have lost contact with it since their Ogallala groundwater series ended.  The management of the Ogallala Aquifer, whether by local GMD, the state, some cooperative super-entity or the federal government, will remain controversial I'm fairly certain.

A Short Look at the Guarani Aquifer

In our part of the world the Ogallala Aquifer is really important, and has been written about extensively.  It is often touted (sometimes accurately and sometimes not) as the largest, the most heavily developed and/or the most stressed aquifer - in the northern hemisphere, the US and/or the world.

However, when it comes to size and volume of water, it's the Guarani Aquifer that clearly sets the bar.  This expansive aquifer is said to cover 1.2 million square kilometers, but quite a bit of its extent has yet to be verified - it might be even bigger.  It underlies parts of Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina in South America, with Brazil having the lion's share (61.6%) of it.  Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have 21%, 8% and 3.3% respectively.  According to one published synopsis (Cassuto and Sampaio) at the rate current usage the aquifer will last for another 2,000 years.  Wikipedia is a bit more generous, claiming that at the worlds current population (6.9 billion) the Guarani could supply the worlds drinking water needs for 1,600 years. 


Well, what to do with the Guarani?  Not long ago the 4 countries claimed sovereign ownership of the aquifer and have been working together to develop a transboundary agreement.  The process is called GAS, for Guarani Aquifer System.  While all four countries have signed the GAS agreement, not all of the Countries have ratified it yet.  And not everyone is satisfied with the agreement, which according to some, is more fluff than substance and as such, will be an ineffective development and management directive.  I say not to worry, for if they screw this up, we've developed the LEMA process they can use to correct things later.  Anyway, now you know a bit about the Guarani Aquifer.  

SD-6 LEMA Now Underway

With the signing of the final LEMA action - the Order of Designation - the Kansas Chief Engineer on April 17 set the SD-6 LEMA a-sail.  Over the next 5 years these intrepid water users will do what is necessary to reduce total water use by some 20% in order to slow the decline rate and extend the economic longevity of their local groundwater supplies.  They are to be congratulated, in my opinion.

But we're not setting them a-sail without any oars.  The federal Risk Management Agency (RMA) has authorized a brand new, only in SD-6, limited irrigation insurance program whereby these producers can insure their limited irrigation corn and soybeans starting this year.  Wow, who thought that'd happen?  The local proposal also provides ample water use flexibility by: 1) converting each water right to a 5-year allocation; 2) allowing multiple water rights to combine allocations; and 3) providing instant transfers of water between allocations.  Our GMD has developed a special newsletter (the SD-6 LEMA Ledger - shown above) to keep everyone up to date with the process and identify potential pitfalls.  Finally, Governor Sam Brownback has fast-tracked a special task force charged to develop strategies whereby limited irrigation producers can maintain or even increase their ag production - again, focused primarily in this LEMA.

All in all, I think this is local control at its best, and not likely to get any better.  So if unused, or poorly used, or (worst of all) summarily rejected, the only likely alternative will be enhanced state control.  I've discussed this before, and still see this as the number one potential problem.  I'll cover more on this topic, from other perspectives, as the process continues to unfold.

RMA to Pilot Limited Irrigation Insurance in SD-6 HPA

Just got the news that Risk Management Agency (RMA) is gearing up to launch their long-awaited limited irrigation insurance program in our SD-6 Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) - in 2013.  I've blogged about this developing program earlier (here) when it was being considered for a 3-state (Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska) roll-out.

This program is being designed to provide irrigated producers a proportional level of crop insurance for restricted irrigated cropping patterns - only for irrigated corn and soybeans initially (as these are the only two crops they have the yield to water use data for at this time).  Currently crop insurance is available only for fully irrigated crops, or, dryland crops, but nothing in between.  The thinking has been that if producers could get fair (proportional) insurance coverage (more risk management options) they would be more likely to limit irrigation and conserve water.  Of course, this protection gets even more important when these same producers are required to restrict pumpage.  The reduced coverages would be easier on the insurance companies, as well. 

A related issue is the effect of restricted irrigation (mandates or otherwise) on actual production history's (APH's).  The plan is that the pilot insurance program will be tried out under a special written agreement in the SD-6 HPA - where a LEMA order is expected soon to restrict their irrigation pumpage to 55 acre-inches over the next 5 years.  Under said agreements a special accounting will be done in regard to the production yields.  Bottom line is that participating producers' yield histories will not be affected during the special program period.

This is a win-win situation in my opinion and I wish to thank RMA and all those involved in offering this program to the SD-6 producers.  It will be interesting to find out how the producers opt to use this program - if at all.  Keep in mind, with the flexibility to use the 55 inches as desired, it is possible that some producers will not need it at all.  For example, those who choose to fully irrigate in 4 of the 5 LEMA years and go to dryland production in the other year will not need it.  On the other hand, anyone planning to use just their 11 acre-inch average allocation per year should be more interested.

There are many other details that are being worked at this time.  I'll try to do another article later on this program as an update. It's great to see the various levels of government supporting the locally developing LEMA plan.

Let's Take A Step Back And Look Long Term

This hydrograph is from the long term monitoring well located on the Kansas State University Experiment Station just west of Colby, Kansas.  It has been measured since the late 1940's with much of the record having a continuous water level chart available.  When you look closely, you see a pretty steady decline rate since 1959 except for a slight, but noticeable bump starting in 1990 and lasting until 2000.

You should be aware that from 1977 through about 2000 this region went through a remarkable conversion of the irrigation systems used to irrigate local crops - from the traditional flood systems to center pivot systems.  These new systems reported pumping reductions - sometimes up to 30%.

If pumping dropped so significantly, why didn't the water level decline rate slow accordingly?  It only slowed during the 1990's because every year of this decade but for one was above average rainfall.  Pumpage in the 90's was down even more and recharge was up a bit.  As soon as rainfall returned to normal, the decline rate did so as well.

The answer is that the water table decline rate is related solely to consumptive water use, not pumpage.  The high pumpage rates under the older, less-efficient flood irrigation systems also meant more deep percolation - recharge.  When the more efficient irrigation systems came in, less water was pumped, but less water was also recharged - the higher system efficiencies meant that a higher percentage of the pumped water went to crop production and healthier crop canopies.  With slightly higher ET use on slightly reduced irrigated acres, total ET stayed about level.  All this means that consumptive crop water use during this transition was staying about the same - thus the decline rates stayed the same.

The only way in our neck of the woods to slow the decline rate is to reduce consumptive water use - meaning crop ET.  The only way to do this is to grow lower ET crops on the same acres, reduce acres, start deficit irrigating the same acres or some combination of all these things.  As the declines continue and eventually well yields drop off, irrigators will start making these decisions by default and the economic engine of the region will begin to slide down - over time.  This is especially true since all wells will not drop off at the same rate or over the entire region at the same time.  It doesn't make it any better, but the notion that one morning the entire Ogallala will be dewatered and stop producing agricultural irrigation water is far fetched.

This is what the HPA process is all about - allowing local water users to decide to reduce CU earlier in this scenario to extend the economic life of the aquifer as they see fit.  I don't see strongly "right" or "wrong" answers here, just local preferences - IF the locals can publicly make these decisions. Let's hope they can discuss these issues in earnest and chart their best course.

Borrego Springs Groundwater Management Revisited

This past May I did a post on the Borrego Springs, CA groundwater management situation.  Quite frankly, I was a bit acerbic about the web page I had run across on this groundwater basin - making the point that the situation was not as bad as it seemed to the web page authors because they had, inadvertantly or otherwise, left out some pretty important groundwater facts.
 
I also just read a report by Rebecca Nelson titled "Uncommon Innovation: Developments in Groundwater Management Planning in California".  This report looked at groundwater management plans that exist in the state and extracted the best, or most promising management approaches from 50 plans that were looked at in some detail.  Incidentally, according to Nelson there are 20-some distinct types of groundwater entities in CA that are authorized to do groundwater management plans, and an estimated 2,300 individual boards, districts, etc. that are engaged. Since they are all local, independent, and lack state oversight, knowing who is doing what and obtaining specific groundwater management plans in the state is difficult at best.

Anyway, in her report Nelson picks several groundwater management approaches from the Borrego Water District's management plan (adopted in 2002) that she cites as innovative and worthy of replication elsewhere.  And they sound really good on paper.  This made me revisit my earlier Borrego Water District post only to discover that I missed the point altogether of the website I visited.  The point of that visited website was that the 2002 Borrego Water District Management Plan, while being adopted by the District governing board, has never been implemented.  This makes their website a bit more meaningful, and Nelson's report a bit more revealing.

I certainly don't profess to know if their management plan has been implemented or not, but if it hasn't, then what's the use?  Nelson does summarize her report with a statement that more research is needed in CA on local groundwater management plans - with questions asked, including:  "Do you actively use your groundwater management plan?" and "Which elements of your plan have been implemented?"  Seems to indicate that groundwater planning for the sake of planning in CA may be a more prevalent practice than most Californian's realize.

Governor's Water Summit

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback will convene a Water Summit with support from Ag Secretary Dale Rodman and the Kansas Water Office in Colby - Thursday, July 21, 2011. The venue will be:  Cultural Arts
Center, Colby Community College, starting at 10:00 A.M. (Registration begins at 9:30 A.M.) The public is invited, but you need to pre-register with the KS Water Office by July 15 if you intend to eat lunch (sponsored) with the group.  Call the KWO at 785-296-3185 or go to their web site (http://www.kwo.org/) to pre-register. The full agenda is also available from the website.  The session will end at 3:30 P.M.

Discussion issues are expected to include:  water conservation;  perceptions of the state’s “use it or lose it” policy;  how do water users generate more economy while reducing (conserving) water use;  and making the IGUCA statutes more effective.  After two framing talks, small discussion groups will be formed and will work until lunch.  The Round Table discussion will then ensue, followed by a Summary and Action Planning session.  This will be a good chance to tell the state (actually, the Governor of the state) what you think about groundwater issues near and dear to your heart.  This district hopes that local control is one of your concerns and that you get a chance to express this.

The results of the discussions and ideas generated will be handed off to a new, ad hoc committee just forming under the Kansas Water Authority.  They are to distill all the discussion and recommend a new roadmap for the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas - what new Legislation may be necessary; funding recommendations; etc., etc.  This could be a good thing for the fully engaged, local GMDs, or...

And the jury is still out on whether or not this summit is a true "fact-finding" and "issue-recognition" session, or, if the Governor has an agenda he is really interested in and just has to hear the public comment before beginning.  I'm not in either camp yet, but sure would like to believe the former - at least the majority of my discussions with organizers and those more closely involved seem to be convinced that way.  Regardless, I'm confident that the really good ideas will survive either approach.  We're appreciative of the Governor's interest in western Kansas water and the time and effort he has put into coming out for the day to talk about what's extremely important to us.

A California Water Dialog

I recently ran across a website promoting better groundwater management for a discreet, isolated, inter-mountain valley aquifer in California - the Borrego Valley in Northeastern San Diego County.  http://www.borregowaterunderground.org/.  The website owners are using this site as a call to arms to force the groundwater regulating entity therein - the Borrego Water District - to implement a groundwater plan they alledgedly drafted in 2002 but have never implemented.  This site claims the groundwater levels have been falling at over 2 feet per year for the past 20 years, and this rate is increasing of late.  Prediction is, based on projected extraction rates, another 30 years before the aquifer reaches a critical point.  Other facts are:  a population of 3,000; a 70 sqaure mile area; and withdrawing 24,000 AF per year.  Sounds pretty serious - at least it did to me upon my first read.

The state's information on the valley is a bit different, but a lot more complete.  They report an area of 240 square miles; annual average net use of 15,160 AF; average annual recharge of 8,300 AF; maximum saturated thickness of 4,500 feet in 3 stacked aquifers, but thinning a bit toward the valley flanks; specific yields ranging from 2% in the deepest formation to 25% in the shallowest; pre-development storage of 5,500,000 AF; total net depletion of groundwater (pre-development to 1980) of 330,000 AF - resulting in 1980 storage of 5,170,000 AF.

Amazing how the scope of the problem changes when the rest of the picture is provided.  In fact it was the lack of saturated thickness, recharge and aquifer storage information that got the better of me and caused me to find this out.  There had to be more to this story.  I had started reading the webpage in context of my local groundwater experience and was struck by the reported decline rates.  These are worse than ours, which are locally considered too high.  It wasn't until the scope of the overdraft in terms of the aquifer's storage volumes was discovered that this picture changed.  While any decline is a problem of some degree and should be addressed (with accurate information if possible), and I applaud these folks for pointing out the situation, I have to also believe there are likely bigger problems to get after than this one, at this time - even in Borrego Springs, CA.

Wells In India - Whew!

I once had the priviledge of meeting and talking to Dr. Tushaar Shah of the International Water Management Institute, Anand, India Regional Office while he visited Kansas on issues of groundwater management.  He was invited to Kansas by KU Law Professor John Peck after having made the statement that institutional groundwater management had not been successful anywhere in the world.  Professor Peck invited him, and asked several of the Kansas groundwater management districts to present a response to his sweeping statement.  Of course, Professor Peck believed that local GMDs in Kansas were far more successful than Dr. Shah's statment would lead everyone to believe.  We presented, and basically concluded that we were mostly successful, but had more work to do - blah, blah, blah. 

But it was during our lunch discussion that I was blown away.  Dr. Shah had told me that India has at least 20 million groundwater wells in the country, but no one really knew how many more there might be, and that with their governmental and water management structures, there was no control over existing wells and little end in sight to new wells coming on line.  Twenty million plus wells and growing. 

Our GMD is fairly well developed (a bit over-developed, in fact) with 3,552 wells, but we're considerably smaller.  Our 4,845 square mile area, by the numbers then, contains about .75 wells per square mile.  India's area is 1,269,219 square miles - meaning they have some 17 wells per square mile - for every square mile in the country.  How'd you like to manage that? Dr. Shah quietly asked me. 

The High Plains Water District in Lubbock, TX is proposing some new rule changes in order to meet their new, "50/50" management goal - having 50% of their 2010 saturated thickness available for use in 2060.  And this goal comes from the much heralded Regional Water Planning Group process on-going all over Texas for the past 6 years or so. 

The district is proposing:  a 15 inch per acre allocation for all irrigation wells; designating areas declining faster than 4 feet in the last 5 years as high decline areas - with these areas being reduced an additional 5% in every year the water table declines exceed the allowable rate; mandatory metering; and a new, non-exempt well moratorium in high decline areas declining 4 feet per year or more.

Sound familiar?  This is eerily similar to what we have been working on in the SD-6 High Priority Area for the past several years, although the numbers and triggers are quite different.  I was hit also by the public comments provided by the Texas producers.  Quite frankly, sounds to me like the SD-6 folks were in attendance.  Some of the Texas comments (from the April, 2011 Cross Section) were:

“You got our attention…now step back and be reasonable.”


“I think the district should slow down and develop good rules, and consider the intended and unintended consequences. Allow us to learn how to apply the requirements before regulation.”


“We can pay now or pay later—but we are going to have to start paying toward water conservation if we’re
to pass anything on to the future... We’ve got to start controlling abuse of the natural resource.”


“Water banking is a good idea. If we put on 15 inches in a season and need two more inches to finish
a good crop but can’t because of restrictions and then lose the crop, that’s not efficient water use at all.”

“Treat everyone equally. Don’t punish the high decline areas when everyone in the district should conserve water as well!”

"The High Plains Water District plays an important role in water policy for this region. And while you may not agree with what is being presented here today, it is probably best to have local control rather than state or federal control of groundwater,”

“Farming is a free-enterprise, private property right. We bought the land, we know the risks, and should be allowed to pump as much water as we want. Otherwise, these rules amount to condemnation without compensation.”

"Consider a CRP program for water and pay producers not to pump for 50 years. Water is a commodity just like all the others.”

“I hate that the water situation has come to this point. I hope and pray that we can work something out that

will benefit all.”

Yep, we've heard these same comments (and more) in our SD-6 deliberations.  Generally, I think the SD-6 program is triggered earlier and is more restrictive, but it affects smaller areas of the district than does the Texas approach.  One of the take-aways of this process by the water district is the realization that the regulated public is not familiar enough with the rule making process - and this has been an issue.  Now that I think about it, this has been the case in our area as well.  I don't know what the High Plains District did in the way of PR in advance of their efforts, but I am positive our approach has been exceedingly open and well publicized.  I'll be watching their process closely.

GMDA to Meet

The Groundwater Management District Association (GMDA) meets twice a year - a Winter meeting usually in the first half of January, and a Summer meeting usually in early June.  The Winter conference is the formal meeting where most of the business happens - like board elections, resolutions, and the like.  The Summer meeting is more of a technical session most heavy on the inner workings of local groundwater management.

June 1-3, 2011 GMDA will be meeting in Estes Park, CO at the Stanley Hotel (haunted, no less).  You are invited to attend if you have an interest in groundwater management, and invited to join if you are a groundwater management district person, an associated business or even an individual with an interest.  Contact me (Wayne Bossert, PO Box 905, Colby, KS 67701) for more information.

GMDA has two web sites:  Main webpage; and a History site to help you get acquainted.  There are some incredible local groundwater management people - both staff and board members - who will be in attendance.  Visit the main webpage for more details of the Estes Park Conference.

(Hey, don't forget to vote in the poll !!!!)  

Extremes Make It...Well, Extreme

The law of statistics is the more data variability you have, the harder it is to describe.  And of course, the harder it is to describe, the harder it is to manage.

In our groundwater management district - all or parts of the 10 NW Kansas Counties (Map of KS GMDs) we seem to have quite a range of conditions to try and manage.  For example, our saturated thicknesses range from 0 feet to 210 feet of water - the average being about 75 feet.  The decline rates range from about 1.7 feet per year to rises of a few tenths of a foot per year - the average being .5 feet of decline per year.  Our Transmissivities range from about 8,000 gpd/ft to 125,000 gpd/ft - average is about 18,000 gpd/ft. 

We have areas of thick saturated thickness that are barely declining - all the way to thinner areas of saturated thickness that have higher decline rates.  Well development density is also all over the board, from Townships with one or two wells to one with 80 wells.  Bottom line is that everything we try to do we have to consider sliding scales, weighted formulas, or whatever it takes to make sure that management decisions don't under manage one area while over managing another.  The old saying that "One size doesn't fit all" is certainly true here.

Later I'll go into a bit more detail along these lines with some examples.

Groundwater Management Districts to Meet

January 12-14, 2011 the Groundwater Management Districts Association (GMDA) will meet in San Antonio, TX for their 36th annual conference.  The Hotel Drury on the Riverwalk will host the affair.  Our GMD, the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 has been involved in this association since its inception in 1976.

There are over 30 local GMD's from 7 or 8 states in the association, so the scope of groundwater issues and approaches is pretty well covered. It often amazes me how similar Kansas' groundwater issues are with those of Mississippi, and how different they are as well.  One thing is for sure, meeting from time to time to discuss groundwater issues is an excellent way to view the groundwater world from a variety of perspectives.

The varying legal approaches to groundwater over the participating states does make for some interesting discussions.  What other states are doing with and about their groundwater resources must always be filtered through that state's groundwater statutes before being considered in your own state.  This can be a challenge at times.  However, these comparisons are always productive in my opinion.

If you're interested in groundwater, you may want to consider looking into GMDA.  Two links for further information are:  GMDA Main Website and GMDA History Link  Visit the main website for specific conference information.  I hope to see you in San Antonio.

Groundwater as a Private Right

I can't resist this one.  As many know, Texas has long treated groundwater as a private right with their "Rule of Capture" which basically says anyone can use the water as much as they like - even to the detriment of others. It has often been called the "Rule of the Biggest Pump".  While it has certain advantages, it also guarantees that every drop of water can be used.

With a case now in the Texas Supreme Court (Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day) the issue of who owns the water is expected to get more court direction when the ruling is released.  Mr. Day (who has incidently passed away) argues that the Edwards Aquifer Authority can't restrict him from using groundwater from under his land, while EAA argues that they have the right to manage the groundwater and his diversion will overtax the supply. 

I ran across a set of statements made by a Texas Association which I find interesting.  This group is asking the Texas Legislature (presumably anticipating a court decision to the contrary) to clearly make groundwater a private landowner right.  The statements are:

“Private landowner ownership of groundwater encourages good stewardship and promotes accountability.”

"Private ownership provides more certainty and balance in water planning for the future.”

“As the demand for groundwater in Texas increases, it is important that groundwater continues to be recognized and reaffirmed as vested, real property of private landowners.”

“... supports reasonable regulation of groundwater so private landowners are treated fairly and afforded due process, property rights are respected, and all private landowners maintain the ability to use groundwater for any beneficial use."

Inquiring minds are likely to wonder how unrestricted access to water by all landowners can provide more certainty in water planning, better accountability, and at the same time respect all property rights.

While this case is expected to make or break local groundwater management authority in Texas, I halfway expect the court to render a ruling that continues to leave wiggle room on each side of the issue.  This is the way Texans roll!

Groundwater Folks Convene - GMDA

The Groundwater Management Districts Association (GMDA) will hold its Summer meeting in Little Rock, AR on June 6-8, 2010 at the Capital Hotel.  You are invited to attend and meet a lot of the groundwater folks from Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi and a smattering of other places where local GMDs exist.

During the session, which is refreshingly informal (and I mean this literally) each state will have a presentation on:  a) irrigation methods in their state; 2) how to be more efficient with irrigation; and 3) how conservation programs contribute to reducing groundwater use.  As an added bonus, Keith Admire from the NRCS National Water Management Center will also present.

There'll also be presentations from: Todd Fugitt, Arkansas Water Resources; Richard Coupe, USGS Groundwater Modeling; and the Corps of Engineers on the Lower Arkansas River.  Many don't realize the extent to which Arkansas irrigates from groundwater - it's an eye-popping irrigation state in terms of acres irrigated.

Contact (email) Judith McGaugh for more information.  Also consider visiting the GMDA Website for information on GMDA or this conference.

Looks like the YMD Joint Water Management District has put together another great session.  

One Reason Why Groundwater is So Hard to Manage

I have long felt that the success to our local groundwater management efforts would rise or fall with our ability to translate the pulse of the people into groundwater policy.  If we created an effective enough public discourse process, then the district could move forward whatever majority positions were expressed. 

One annual meeting many years ago (early in my career) I set out to test my hypothesis.  There were 109 folks at this meeting and I had a single question survey that I asked them to complete.  The question something to the effect of:  "If the board were to stabilize the water table, at what percentage of current remaining saturated thickness should this be done?"  The choices, one of which each person was to circle, were listed across the page under the question and consisted of:  0%;  10%;  20%;  30%;  40%;  50%;  60%;  70%;  80%;  90%;  100%.

I was expecting a fairly nice bell curve probably centered around the 60% or 70% choice.  Boy was I surprised.  It was a flat-line graph with virtually equal responses for every choice.  So much for having any kind of consensus - at least on the issue of how much water we should retain. 

There were only about 75 responses, so it's not like the survey was scientifically valid, but it was an eye-opener.  Bottom line is everyone has their own ideas of what should be done, how, when and why it should be done, and who should be doing it.  Maybe a weighted, super-matrix approach...

GMDA - Association of Groundwater Management Districts

If you're interested in groundwater I might suggest you visit the Groundwater Management Districts Association - a non-profit organization established to provide groundwater developers, users, owners and other individuals and organizations concerned with the management, development, conservation and protection of groundwater, the opportunity to exchange ideas, develop or influence programs for the development, utilization, conservation, protection and management and control of groundwater; and in furtherance thereof the Association shall endeavor:

a) To be informed of and exchange ideas on current trends and problems as they affect groundwater, including those which have, or may have, technical, legal, administrative and economic implications.

b) To review and analyze methods and techniques employed by members and their associates in conducting studies and research on management of groundwater and in designing and obtaining solutions to problems associated therewith.

c) To review, analyze, propose and influence legislation and policy as they affect groundwater.

d) To evaluate activities and plans of governmental bodies and other organizations and associations as they relate to groundwater and to take appropriate action.

e) To develop and propose joint or coordinated plans of action to meet national, interstate and/or regional groundwater problems and needs, including affiliations or memberships in other similar organizations or associations.

f) To assess and encourage, as appropriate, the conjunctive use and management of both surface water and groundwater supplies with due consideration for the unique and limiting properties of each resource.

g) To foster the general public's knowledge and appreciation for the economic advantages of private enterprise and development of groundwater.

h) To promote orderly and equitable development, conservation and management of groundwater through local government.

GMDA also maintains a historical web site for the association that is more about the past, but it has a lot of interesting material as well.