Farm Bill & Water Conservation

This GMD has been discussing ways the federal Farm Bill could help with water conservation since the early 1990's.  In fact, it was in 1993 when we first suggested it to the Kansas Department of Agriculture upon their creation of the Agricultural Ogallala Task Force - to study water use in Kansas and make recommendations.  They made a lot of recommendations, one of which was pretty close to our suggestion.  It read:

Create an option within the federal farm program, possibly as a separate title to the 1995 farm bill, entitled the "Groundwater Conservation Program." The program would function with the following provisions:



a. Producers receive US Department of Ag deficiency payments from acres with irrigated history at the irrigated level if they agree not to irrigate those acres. This option would continue as long as the farmer does not irrigate and the federal deficiency payment structure exists.


b. It would apply to groundwater users in aquifers where groundwater mining is occurring. Groundwater mining refers to areas where water is removed from storage faster than is recharged naturally. This could be defined by a certain percentage drop in saturated thickness over a specific period of time.


c. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) historical farm base would be preserved for all crops.


d. Irrigation wells which are not pumped for the duration of this federal program would be protected from abandonment by DWR in the same manner that wells are protected in the Center for Renewable Resources (CRR).

e. This program would be cost neutral to the federal budget.

f. A phase-in would ensue at a percentage of a farmer's irrigated land per year so as not to overly disrupt agribusinesses in the aquifer affected.

We offered our idea again as testimony in September 2005 when US Ag Secretary Johanns visited Kansas listening to ideas for the new Farm Bill (slated for 2007 at the time).  This time rather than setting aside irrigation altogether, we pushed for cropping subsidies for less water intensive crops that would encourage irrigators to grow and irrigate less corn and more milo, sunflowers and  soybeans, which all have lower water requirements.  The idea was to aim for the same economic returns for the producers in specially managed areas while conserving water and energy.  Our full testimony can be found here.  It should be noted, however, that both ideas are limited to special areas where water conservation is locally recognized as a need, and, only if these areas are closed to new appropriations.  Again, no need to conserve water if new water rights are going to be allowed.

I won't be surprised if the same concepts come up at next weeks Governor's Water Summit where Kansas Governor Brownback has asked for water conservation ideas that will maintain or increase economic returns as well.  He clearly realizes that conserving water in and of itself will have an economic impact.

Kansas Water Transfer Act

A water transfer in Kansas means the transportation of 2,000 AF or more per year for use at a point 35 miles or more away.  The act is administered by a Water Transfer Panel made up of the chief engineer, the secreatry of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Director of the Kansas Water Office - 3 state agency heads.  The chief engineer is the chair of the panel. 

Basic tenets are: 

1) No transfer can be approved that would reduce the amount of water required for present or any reasonably foreseeable future needs by users in the source area.  (Of course, there are exceptions, like if the panel thinks the benefits to the state for approving the transfer will outweigh the benefits to the state for not approving it; or, the panel says an emergency exists which affects the public health, safety or welfare; or, the governor declares an emergency affecting the public health, safety or welfare.)  

2)  No water transfer can happen: (1) If such transfer would impair water rights; and (2) if the transfer is for use by a public water supply, unless the panel determines that a conservation plan has been implemented by the applicant that meets state guidelines, has been in effect for a year or more, and implements a rate structure which encourages efficient water use.

3)  No transfer shall happen without an application and a public hearing.

4)  No transfer shall be exempt from complying with:  a) a GMD Management Program (so long as the program does not prohibit transfers out of the district; applies equally to users inside and outside a GMD; and does not discriminate against users outside a GMD); and b) the water appropriation act or the water plan storage act.

There are 9 elements the panel must consider when deciding if the benefits to the state for approving the transfer outweigh a no-transfer decision:  1) All current beneficial use(s) being made of the transferred water; 2) any reasonable future use of the water; 3) the economic, environmental, public health and welfare and other impacts of acting on the transfer; (4) alternative water sources available to the applicant; (5) the applicant's actions to preserve the quality and remediate any water contamination now available; 6) design, construction and operation of any works used to carry the water; 7) effectiveness of conservation plans implemented by the applicant; 8) conservation plans implemented by any persons protesting or potentially affected by the transfer; and 9) any applicable program, standard, policy or rule and regulation of a groundwater management district.

As you can see, there is considerable latitude given to the state panel in approving or disapproving water transfers.  And virtually everything is couched in terms of "what's best for the STATE".  Even the local GMD management plans must go along with transfers - at least they can't preclude them.  With few people, little political representation, relatively little money, an active water marketing system, and very little direct involvement in the process, can you see how skeptical the rural folks with water might be?

 

A common feeling is:  Why should we work at cutting water use back any amount when it's so easy for the state to transfer part or all of what we had been using out of our area for someone else's use?"  In these cases, it seems an active water market and a definitive transfer process become impediments to responsible management decisions.  I don't know if this is right or not, but it appears real.
 

In the process of developing the SD-6 HPA regulatory water use reductions, the first big concern/issue was proving that the water saved would stay local and be available to them or their descendants later.  Otherwise they would never have continued discussions.  There are likely few folks who will purposely scrabble and do with less water when the system can allow (or result) in their savings going somewhere else.  Not knowingly, anyway.  I wonder if this is an issue in other areas considering mandated water use reductions or active water marketing devices designed to re-allocate (reduce) water use?

GMD4 Newsletter Reaches 30 Years

GMD 4 celebrates 30 years of producing its newsletter "The Water Table", which incidentally was the first water-related newsletter in the state of Kansas.  I recall as a brand new groundwater manager suggesting to the district directors that we initiate a newsletter on a quarterly basis to keep the membership and state players informed and to solicit the ideas and comments of those we were intending to regulate.  Their response was positive so long as the funding for the first year came from non-district funds - as our budget had already been set and did not include such funds.  I beat the bushes and came up with the $1,200 it would take to put out 4 editions.  And the rest is history.

Today the newsletter is 6 editions per year and looks quite a bit different, but the basic content and goals have changed little.  The budget for last years newsletter was approximately $7,800 - an expenditure the board has unwaveringly supported.  I have written every edition, but have had guest articles from time to time dealing with specific issues.  (I have to always chuckle about the "missing edition" - one I completely forgot about and missed completely (although to this day I'm not sure anyone noticed))  As the various editions are reviewed, it strikes me that they represent a fairly detailed history of groundwater activity in Kansas - at least from 1978 to present.  Of this I am most proud - although I admit it never crossed my mind at the start.

The last 30 or so editions are maintained on our website http://www.gmd4.org/ should anyone be interested.  We send out about 4,800 copies each edition with copies going to many states and even one reader receiving his copy in London.  Maybe all this writing is one reason that my blogging is not as prolific as others in the water sector who manage to turn out prodigious amounts of material - you know who you are!  As always, if there are suggestions out there for improving our product, I'm always open and listening.