Limited Supply Water Use Meetings Slated

ATTENTION KANSAS IRRIGATORS:  The Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources (DWR) and K-State Research and Extension will be hosting four educational meetings for water right holders who have questions about water rights in drought and possible ways to manage next year’s water supply. If you have used any of the emergency water right tools this year, you should plan on attending one of these sessions.

The goal of these meetings will be to provide information to water right holders, who will likely be operating their irrigation systems next year with less water, about potential solutions available for them.  The information will cover all the newest gizmos developed in response to the 2011 drought - including emergency term permits and flex accounts.  In addition, Kansas State University (KSU) has some great tools for making decisions on how to optimize profit in in these conditions that they are going to share.  (click to see an earlier blog post on these tools)

In overview, a recent KDA press release says it this way:  "...the Kansas Department of Agriculture offered water right holders two alternatives to allow for additional pumping authority in 2011, the 2011 Drought Emergency Term Permit and Multi-Year Flex Account (MYFA) Permits.  The Emergency Term Permit allows water right holders to borrow from their 2012 water allocation in 2011.  The MYFA allows for water right allocations to be spread out across a 5-year period.  These options and how they work will be discussed in detail at the meetings. This discussion will include potential enhancements to MYFAs that the department is drafting for the consideration of the 2012 legislative session."

As a bonus, a brief overview of water right law in Kansas under the Kansas Water Appropriation Act will be covered, with emphasis on what needs to be understood as these limited water right irrigators get into next years pumping plans.  This segment basically lets you know why these tools were needed in the first place.

KSU Water Resources Engineer Norman Klocke and KSU Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer Danny Rogers will also discuss topics affecting producers’ crop and irrigation decisions including expected yield from irrigation, year-to-year yield variability and risk, profitability potential of possible crop rotations for 2012 and potential yield outcomes for 2012.

The 4 scheduled meetings are:

November 15, 2011:  Larned, KS; 9 a.m. to 12 noon; Pawnee County Fairgrounds; J.A. Haas Building; 400 E. 18th St.

November 15, 2011:  Pratt, KS 2 to 5 p.m.; Pratt Area 4H Center; 81 Lake Road.


November 16, 2011:  Garden City, KS; 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.; Southwest Area Extension Office, 4500 E. Mary St.

November 16, 2011:  Hugoton, KS; 2 to 5 p.m.; Stevens County Memorial Hall, 200 E. 6th St.

All of the meetings are open to the public and there is no cost to attend and no need to RSVP.  These meetings have been concentrated in the drought area where the large majority of 2011 pumping was affected.  For additional information, contact the Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources field offices in Stafford at 620-234-5311, Stockton at 785-425-6787 or Garden City at 620-276-2901.

Biodegradable Polymers

Some mid-western irrigators have been touting the benefits of starch-based polymers that are added to the soil to help conserve water.  The particular application I was reading was about potato crops growing in sandy, hilltop areas which used to be less productive and require about 15% more water than other areas of the fields.   The polymers are not only water retention materials, but are biodegradable and break down in about a years time.

According to one grower the users "..want to change the irrigation schedule to reduce the environment for disease. Now they can irrigate on the dry side and still keep the plant healthy."  In fact, one product's initial testing indicated that 25% deficit irrigation with the polymer will provide the same yield as full irrigation without it.  This could save quite a bit of water - what with the ability to deficit irrigate every acre by no less than 25%.

I wonder if the polymers are capturing erstwhile recharge waters and resulting in a higher percentage of the pumped and naturally provided water available to the crop rather than returning it to the groundwater system?  Reports of it "increasing yields" and "helping to keep plants healthy" seems to imply the plants are getting more water than before.  If this is true, I wonder how many users are subsequently using their extra water on newly irrigated acres?  I wonder if they can alternatively plant higher planting rates for increased production on the same acres?  Or how many are switching to a more water intensive crop to grow?  For those who don't do any of the above, I wonder if they can or will be able to market their saved water to some other grower on other acres, or, for some other consumptive use altogether?  Of course, if any of these things happen to any degree there is no real water conservation (water use reduction) occurring at all.  In fact, more water gets used.  It's clearly a more efficient use of water, but not any real reduction in consumptive water use.

But on the positive side, I gotta believe some fertilizer and ag chemical is being prevented from leaching into the groundwater by reducing or eliminating the deep percolation.  And you'd have to also believe there would be an energy savings too - so long as the saved water isn't being pumped and used elsewhere.  And it'd have to be good for the economy regardless of whether these users grow the same production with less water and inputs, or, increase production with the same water and inputs.  All in all, though, it's hard to imagine increased yields and production and healthier crops without more water being available to the plants - one way or another.  Any detailed water use studies out there on these polymers?

Can Flexibility Be Had Without Increasing Water Use?

Dilemma - Kansas irrigators are asking for multi-year flexibility under their annual water rights for various reasons.  They say it will help them make more efficient use of the water they pump, and provide an answer to staying within their legal rights in our state's exceptionally variable weather regime.  Is there a way to provide such flexibility without resulting in any increase in water use?

With an annual water right an irrigator might have 100 AF of water as his or her annual appropriation.  The way it was perfected means that the 100 AF would normally include enough water to cover a dry year, and as such, it would never be legally allowed to exceed 100 AF of use.  In a dry year they would likely use all of it, but in the average and wet years they would use less - say 75% in an average year and 50% in a wet year.  Under this arrangement, and never knowing beforehand if it was going to be dry, wet or average, water use would end up being 75% of the 3-year cumulative appropriation (225 AF) if it was an average 3-year pattern (one wet year, one dry and one average - in any order).  Since there would be an equal chance of having any combination of years (3 wet years in a row (resulting in 50% total use) or 3 dry years in a row (resulting is 100% use) or any other combination) it makes sense to me that over the long haul, the averages will hold true.

However, if you allow an irrigator to use 300 AF over every 3-year period, could they more consistently use their full 200 AF cumulative use in the first 2 years - regardless of the weather - and then play the averages in the third year?  The math says that if the third year was wet, the irrigator would use 250 AF cumulative; if it were average, they'd use 275 AF and if it was dry they'd use all 300 AF.  In every case you'll note they use more than the 225 AF they would have used under the annual water use system.  This begs for some kind of AF stipend from the irrigator for the ability to have the added flexibility (flexibility translated to:  management opportunity to maximize water use).  But what is a fair arrangement that will allow flexibility, but not increase water use?

Some systems I've looked at also provide for "borrowing" from or "carrying over" to the next 3-year allocation period.  While providing yet more flexibility, this arrangement also provides that much more management opportunity to maximize water use.  Maybe it's not that big of an issue.  While some increase in water use is possible with a multi-year appropriation, it's not all that alarming and the increased use is capped - meaning that once it starts occurring, it never gets any bigger.   But it does occur every 3 years.  Should we just chalk the likely increase up to the cost of doing business and take the extra production?

In Kansas we also have peripheral issues - the most pressing being possible impairment if we allow essentially uncontrolled annual pumpage. Our well spacing systems were mostly designed on annual maximum pumpage quantities so as to have a known impact on all surrounding wells.  Allowing any additional annual pumpage could theoretically pose short term supply problems between wells.

I'd be interested if anyone else has addressed this issue, how they have done it, and how satisfied they are with their approach.  Kansas will be thinking about this pretty seriously over the next 6-months or so.  We're always looking for ideas.

National Yield Contests

Is it just me, or are the national yield contests sending the wrong message?  Let's talk corn. 

I know corn yield contests are supposed to be about increasing production to feed a hungry world, but they can also push input limits - fertilizers, micro nutrients, water - to the max as well.  In every case, promoting the elusive 400 bushel per acre corn yield can be considerably input (water) intensive.   I also know there are a number of classes in the contest, including non-irrigated - and this is fine.  In 2008 over 6,000 participants were in the national corn growing contest - pushing their production skills to the limit.  And 2010 was the 49th year of the contest.

Most ag schools will tell you that maximum yield rarely (if ever) provides the producer the best net returns.  Like yield's response to water being curvilinear toward the top end, (See earlier irrigation post) yield response to fertilizer and all other inputs is the same.  It simply ends up costing the producer more in inputs than the last few bushels of grain are worth - thus lowering net returns.  Unfortunately, yield contests are all about top production - regardless.

In 2010 the irrigated class was consistently above 300 bushels per acre yield.  But I noted that all but a few of the top irrigated producers were from Texas and Colorado - dry climate states.  The top 2010 irrigated producer managed 368 bushels per acre from a Virginia farm. 

Maybe it's time we start thinking about the input side of crop production in a contest form.  Maybe the contest should be about crop yield efficiency - the highest yield with the least amount of inputs - especially water.  Classes within the National Corm Yield Contest for limited irrigation would do this - it'd be a start, at least.  When water gets really limited, it'll all be about growing maximum bushels with minimum water anyway, so maybe we should be pushing these frontiers a bit more now.  And maybe I'm all wet, too.  Comments?

How You Reduce Water Use Matters

Guess I have to hit this issue again because no action seems to be on anyone's planning calendar as of yet. 

The issue is the design of the Federal EQIP and AWEP programs which are supposed to be, in part, helping producers and states conserve water use.  They are doing OK - at least the way we're using them in Kansas, but they could be even better.

No one doubts the positive relationship between water application and crop production. Every Ag school in the nation produces crop production curves showing the normal yield associated with each additional inch of water made available to the crop - either by irrigation or by nature.  And all the curves look more or less the same - a steeper curve for the first 60-70% of the crop ET, then a flattening curve until it actually starts dropping when too much water is applied.  A grain crop production curve from Elsie, NE is provided above - click to enlarge.  Every crop in every climate has such a production curve.

If this is the case, it makes perfect sense that any decision to reduce water use in ag should reduce the least efficient water use from several users rather than the full water use from any user(s).  In other words, reducing 20% of water from 5 users will be the same amount of water reduction as reducing 1 water user fully (as long as they're all using the same amount) - but the former approach will yield more production at the end of the year than the latter.  This is because every inch of the reduced water in the first approach was being applied at the top of the production curve - when the crop's yield response is at its lowest.  There are actually other reasons such an approach is better economically, but not enough space to go into these now.  

Right now, EQIP and AWEP are only available to conserve water through the set aside of full water rights.  This, of course, is not as efficient a reduction of water use than if we could have more people involved in the reductions as suggested in the first approach.  I'll continue to work on NRCS to promote this relatively minor tweak in their programs.  I'd appreciate any help I can get because thus far they don't seem to be all that interested in this idea.

Again, we can conserve the same amount of water either way, but with more producers saving smaller amounts of water, our production levels are not reduced as much, and this is quite a bit better for the local economy.

One More Irrigation Efficiency Technical Point - Evaporation

Also in the irrigation efficiency debate, we must remember that evaporation is a consumptive water use (CU).  Normally crop water use (transpiration) and evaporation (from applying water and from leaf surfaces and soil) are lumped together because it is difficult to separately quantify the two values.  Together these values are called evapotranspiration, and again, are a consumptive water use.  However, of any evapotranspiration value used to descibe an irrigation water balance, transpiration is by far the larger portion of that value and can approach or even exceed 90%. 

Since irrigation efficiency improvements reduce non-consumptive water applications AND evaporation, most assume that these upgrades do in fact reduce CU and thus conserve water.  I have been called on this point before, and technically this is true enough.

However, most continue to deny that CU increases under most of these conversions and continue to point to the evaporation reductions.  Our findings show that CU increases do occur, and easily offset the evaporation reductions - resulting in a net increase of water use.  Normally CU will increase in one or more of three ways:  additional acres are irrigated; a higher water consumptive crop(s) is grown on the same acres; or more of the same crop is produced on the same acres - all made possible by the "saved" water resulting from the increased irrigation efficiency.

Now, to be perfectly honest, not every irrigation conversion to a higher efficiency system increases CU.  Some irrigators can't add acres, don't grow different crops, or don't manage to increase yields.  But most do.  So again, we find that the net change of a number of conversions is in fact an increase in CU.  While it's not an obscene increase (kinda subtle, actually) my point is that the amount of money applied to doing this in the name of "saving water" in water short areas is obscene - especially when it actually makes the problem just a tad worse.  The money can almost always be better spent on other solutions to reducing water use.

So wrapping up:  1) irrigation efficiency conversions can in the exact right hydrologic conditions conserve water, but these conditions don't exist very often (see April 19, 2010 blog); 2) they often reduce evaporation (consumptive) water losses, but these savings are small and are most often easily offset by practices that increase CU; and 3) the cost of this approach to "save water" is more often than not very poorly spent money.  Comments?
 

When Irrigation Efficiency Saves Water

I have been pretty critical of improving irrigation efficiencies as a means to conserve water.  There are a number of posts within this blog that deal with my concerns.  However, there are times and situations where this practice does in fact conserve, or save, water.  This is what this post is about.

In general, any situation where the irrigation water being applied is from a different source than where the inefficient water is collecting, AND, where no one is using the inefficient water losses, it is a very good idea to improve irrigation efficiencies - which simply eliminates the inefficient water sink that no one else is using.  (This is the "poor timing" water volume shown in the picture)  These efforts will save energy and other crop inputs, as well - all good things.  However, if someone else is using this source of water, all bets are off.

Another example that comes to mind is in a groundwater situation where there is a shallow, unusable aquifer perched above the irrigation water source, AND, all deep aquifer recharge is from lateral sources not connected to the perched aquifer.  In other words, the inefficient water use collects in the shallow, unused, perched aquifer and never returns to the original source.  Again, irrigation efficiency improvements under these conditions will clearly save water within the deep source aquifer.  But again, no one can be using (have rights to) the shallow water supply because the efficiency improvements, if taken far enough, are eventually going to eliminate its source.

In both of the cases just discussed, it should be noted that the consumptive crop water use does not change after the improvements - the crops continue to consume the same amount of water as before.  The savings come from the elimination of the inefficient water application that was not returning to the original source.  This is all water that, after the improvements, no longer needs to be pumped.  These situations extend the life of the original water source - which even I can define as conservation.

Other than these specific conditions, irrigation efficiency improvements do not conserve water much at all - certainly not enough to spend the amount of money folks are suggesting.  There are other benefits to increased irrigation efficiencies - like reduced energy and reduced crop inputs and a better farm operation bottom line.  Let's do it for these reasons, but be aware that consumptive water use is not being affected and it's the consumptive water use that changes aquifer storage volumes.  The fact that most argue these improvements also increase production per unit of pumped water probably tells us right off the bat that consumptive water use is increasing as a result - regardless of what pumped water is doing.

Before you buy into irrigation efficiency improvements, make sure you understand what problem it is you're trying to impact, what benefits these efforts will have, and at what cost.

Water Use Report

Recently the USGS released a report on water use in the U.S.  The press picked the headline:  "U.S. Uses Less Water Today".  The report is actually using 2005 data and comparing it to data in previous 5-year blocks of time.

From one of the press releases:  "The report concludes...even though the amount of irrigated acres has increased, irrigation application rates have steadily decreased - a change that the report's authors attribute to the increased use of more efficient irrigation systems." 

And

"We are pleased to see that irrigation efficiency played such a major role in decreasing our nation's overall water use" (John Farner, Irrigation Association).  

Inside the actual report we find recognition that irrigated acres have been increasing.  And inside the guidelines for the preparation of the 2005 report we find the statements:  "Irrigation withdrawals include conveyance losses." and "Data for the optional elements...will not be part of the national water-use analysis for 2005..." and in the mandatory elements we find "Ground-water total withdrawals.. [including conveyance losses]" and in the optional elements we find "consumptive use, by county" [not part of the report].

What seems to be really happening in this report is that the conveyance losses are being reported as use and the consumptive uses are being ignored.  Sure, irrigation efficiency will reduce conveyance losses, thus appearing to "use less water", but the real question is what's happening to the amount of actual consumptive water use?  This is the vital number that relates to long term supply and the health of any hydrologic system. 

My guess is that while pumped (diverted) water is actually less, the application of the less water on more acres is likely to result in increased consumptive water use.  Yes, you get more production from each unit of water as efficiency increases, which is a good thing, but you don't consume (use) less water.   

The judicious use of the phrases "water use" and "consumptive use" are in the report, and I think the distinctions are made - but far too subtely for most to recognize.  So the press simply concludes that water use is reduced. 

I think this is the wrong message to be sending and it leads to more money and effort put to irrigation efficiency (in the name of water conservation) in areas where reducing consumptive water use is most important.  This is one reason why water management continues to be so difficult.

Irrigation and Markets

Many have been discussing the benefits of the market place in allocating water.  The claim is the effectiveness of the market place in ensuring water reaching its highest economic use while also ensuring that the end uses pay the full cost of supplying and replacing the water - sustainability.  Conservation and efficient use are also rewarded with a market solution.  If these are your goals, I think the market pundits have it right.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that irrigated agriculture (probably not even the very highest value specialty crops) will be able to compete with most other water uses - particularly municipal and industrial.  With a market driven paradigm, irrigated agriculture will all but eventually disappear and this water moved to higher economic uses.  While this might be viewed a good thing by some, it will have consequences to our food supply and its quality.  The dry land production of all crops, from vegetables to field corn and wheat, diminishes in quality and quantity without irrigation.  To maintain current production, 1 to 3 acres of new, dry land cropping will have to come into production for evey converted irrigated acre - depending on where the conversions occur.  Of course, some areas only irrigate and cannot sustain dry land cropping at all.

I just can't see how agriculture is going to compete in a pure water market without some assistance.  Of course, said assistance (subsidies) are seriously frowned upon by the pure market supporters.  With subsidies, food costs remain low.  Without them, food costs will rise - dramtically.  Once again, I don't know the answers, but a pure market seems like a choice with serious downsides.  I wonder if a water market can be instituted for all other uses but for ag?

Micro-Irrigation Blitz Coming?

I've been following a micro-irrigation list serve (discussion group) for maybe 3 years now.  It has been personally organized and run by a person in academia and has been focused soley on the technology and science of micro irrigation - promoting all the positives as well as seeking solutions for all the not so positives.  A ton of fair, honest and unfettered discussion has been had since I've joined.  But alas, due to personal reasons the group inventor is stepping down and after few offers to take over the discussion group, he is allowing Toro Micro, a commercial company that develops and sells SDI equipment, to assume the helm. 

And was I ever surprised at the very first "new regime" post.  Tom, representing an engineering and design company promoting, selling and installing smart irrigation systems for business and agriculture (SDI elements included) says (paraphrasing):  "let me be among the first to begin a new thread".   He goes on:

This year, I have attended a few conferences (Park City, UT, and Las Vegas), as well as attended NRCS State Technical Advisory Committee meetings. A couple of presentations were shaded with tones of non-denial that agriculture holds the most potential for really dramatic water and energy optimizations and risk/uncertainty reductions, affecting the nation as a whole.  I would like to report that bold and unified action plans are being developed to boldly transition irrigated agriculture in the West to precision irrigation/fertigation.


But what good is all our enlightened chats if the majority of producers ONLY wish to irrigate and fertilize like their pappy did back in the 1950’s, no rank belittlement intended? Do we need a T. Roosevelt to get irrigation districts, and their stockholders, and the Fed., as well as serious, national agribusiness contributions to rally and unite, towards wide-scale, pressurized network infrastructure and on-farm sensor-based, adaptive management automation….across virtually all of the 17 western states?

Who can't see where this group is headed?  Those who feel that new irrigation technology needs to hold up a minute until government can place appropriate controls on the conversions to ensure no increases of consumptive water use will need to catch their collective breaths - or start monitoring this discussion and demanding some collaboration.

Converting all irrigation water use to higher application efficiencies and then addressing the water supply problem is a huge mistake.  All the capitalization makes subsequent management more difficult than it already is.  The capped water supply issues need to be addressed first, then the conversions.  Yes, the order of implementation does make a difference.  Oh well, just another day in the water management business.

Can't Help But Shake My Head!

Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has been defending irrigation efficiency improvements as a significant part of the water supply crisis of CA. Just today he Blogged:

Two separate companies that manufacture state-of-the-art irrigation efficiency technology have approached me and lamented the difficulty of working in California, where they feel irrigation districts and farm lobbyists work to hinder efforts to improve efficiency, rather than help farmers seeking to improve water use.

I agree with these folks most of the time, but on this issue I really believe they are not right. There are too many reports, models and studies out there that conclude the exact opposite - an increase of consumptive water use upon the adoption of such technology.

Pfeiffer & Lin (University of California, Davis); Samani and Skaggs (New Mexico State University); Amosson & Almos & Golden (Ogallala Aquifer Initiative); Kendy (Montana Hydrogelologist); Bredehoeft (1997); and others have all come to the same conclusion - increased water use efficiency increases consumptive water use. It's not the technology that makes this happen, but the inability of the water managers to recognize it and compensate appropriately. Of course any mandated reduction in irrigated areas, or mandatory cropping restrictions, or irrigation scheduling needed to offset the reduced recharge and higher CU will have economic, social and legal consequences, but these are easy to get by, right? Probably NOT. Anyway, I hope we don't pin our future water supply hopes too much on improved irrigation technology until we're sure of the sacrifices needed to accomplish it.