Water Conservation?

I read a recent article by a Texas journalist on the state's discussions about improving water conservation.  It is titled:  Water Conservation Ideas Offered for Texas Legislature.  Interesting read. 


Most people read "water conservation" in their own context, and get a warm and fuzzy feeling about this motherhood-and-apple-pie notion.  How can conservation be a bad thing they say?  It means there'll be more for us - at least for a longer period of time.  And this is true.  But it can also mean more water so more people can partake - thus putting us right back in the soup again just a few years down the road.  

From the article: 

"Texas has passed water-conservation bills in the past. In fact, Texas and California rank first among all states in water efficiency.... Texas accumulated points for laws such as requiring water utilities to audit their water losses and limiting the amount of water that toilets and urinals can use. The Legislature created the Water Conservation Advisory Council in 2007; last month it produced a report filled with recommendations for the Legislature."   

And the very next sentence reads:  "But Texas, with its fast-growing population, needs to do more, water experts say."

OK, so it seems that in Texas' case water conservation is being promoted simply to provide water for more water users (i.e. that "fast-growing population").  Keep in mind it takes 8 people conserving 10% of their current use to support 1 new citizen - and that's if that new person starts out using water as conservatively as those who tightened their belts to provide it.  Otherwise the current use actually increases with that single new arrival, or the many others who were not planned for.  This of course also means that the water supply planners must have a very clear picture of how much and when to restrict new growth based on the conserved water they have created.  If not, they need an equally clear picture of when to start and how aggressively to promote their next water conservation campaign.  Eventually, there can be no more water conservation gains without economically stressing the host.

Anyone know such a group of water planners?  Or such a group who have the ear and support of the city council or governing body responsible for the economic progress of the city?  

The other approach is not to rely on conservation and seek new water "..somewhere over the next divide..".  Those that have already conserved to the max, or understand that conservation is not a reasonable solution (because it pretty quickly stops new growth) opt for this approach.  Is anyone thinking a certain desert city in Nevada?

Neither choice is necessarily a good or bad one, but I think it should be a conscious, informed choice by an involved public.  I wonder how many water planners are couching their plans of spurring growth by promoting conservation?  Nowhere in the Texas article do I read specifically what the state's intentions are in this regard, but reading in between the lines...     

Anyone have some thoughts on this topic?

Climate & Energy Project

I was contacted a few months ago about participating in a new effort being developed by the Climate and Energy Project - a group interested in water and energy conservation in the Midwest.

Their effort involves promoting on-farm water and energy efficiency.  Their plan is to work with all the influential agriculture, water organizations and progressive coops in the state to identify best practices in water and energy conservation on farms and in agriculture businesses.  They then want to highlight the best practices in a highly publicized report (and videos) at a recognition event and share them across the state for others to emulate.  

The steering committee members - myself included - are to scour our areas to find examples of energy and water conservation that meet the criteria of:  1)  replicable, scalable and appropriate for diverse Kansas farms; 2) preserves and enhances water quality; 3) reduces greenhouse gas emissions; 4) represents an affordable approach; 5) saves money; and 6) preserves or enhances soil quality. When these specific cases are identified, we'll all decide which are the best of the best, then the CEP folks will seek to contact and interview the user for all the detail that will help others implement their great ideas.

As we move forward on this, I'm wondering if anyone out in the blog-o-sphere has any superlative ideas or examples that they'd like to share.  Not so much people, but practices.  If it's being done elsewhere, I'm pretty sure someone in Kansas is trying it too.

AG, NRCS, GMD4 and Water

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced last Friday a new pilot program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Kansas and Colorado to remove sediments from ponds to help provide more water for livestock or for irrigation.  This effort will be part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and is largely in response to the on-going drought.  According to the press release it's to "..provide an additional conservation option for producers who face drought-related issues on their agricultural operations." 

The press release goes on to cover another water conservation program that was implemented from within the recently expired Farm Bill - that being The Ogallala Aquifer Initiative.  NRCS claims that through the Farm Program at least 860,000 acre feet of water was not withdrawn from the Ogallala due to all its conservation programs, representing 1.1% of the entire irrigation use over the same time frame.  Their calculations say that the 1.1% extension translates into $82 million of ag sales at today's value, and, saved the equivalent of 18 million gallons of diesel in energy savings.  They state that just over 25% of these numbers were attributed directly to the Ogallala Aquifer Initiative.

GMD 4 is proud to report that we were a significant recipient of Ogallala Aquifer Initiative funds in which we set aside and/or retired irrigation water use in our six designated High Priority Areas.  Of course, one of these six areas may soon become a formal Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) under new Kansas law which will continue the water savings on into the future.

I don't know about saving 860,000 acre feet of water through these programs, but they have been positive for sure.  Suffice it to say that the federal accounting for water savings can be quite different than how we'd account for a water savings.  We've managed to retire (save) just over 2,000 acre feet of real water between the federal AWEP (through NRCS) and the Kansas Water Transition Assistance Program.  This is measured, historical use of water independent of water right authorizations or any other numbers that can look quite impressive.  And they were in relatively small, hydrologic areas where the reductions in use are more likely to have a noticeable effect.

Anyway, nice to see the Department of Agriculture helping out in the drought areas through programs and assistance.

Municipal Water Savings in Kansas

One of the very positive things done in Kansas is the state's effort to reduce and/or eliminate unaccounted for water use in our municipal and rural water district systems.  How do they do it?

It all begins with the state water plan and the overall goals expressed in this document for municipal water use.  According to the Water Conservation Section of the Plan (Volume I), the goal is expressed simply as follows:  "Reduce the number of public water suppliers with excessive “unaccounted for” water by first targeting those with 30 percent or more “unaccounted for” water."

The primary way this is done is via a contract between the Kansas Water Office (KWO) and the Kansas Rural Water Association (KRWA).  Basically the KRWA does water audits for cities and rural water districts in seeking leaks, meter discrepancies, unaccounted for water usage, and other supply problems.  The latest FY 2012 annual report is available (here) and contains the actual contract agreements and much more information about the arrangement. 

Last fiscal year (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012) the KRWA worked 128 water loss surveys and detected 653 GPM of leaks.  This leak rate had lost 343,216,800 gallons of fresh water in the year before they were detected.  All this water saved for a mere $325,000.   

This contract has been in place since FY 1992, so over the past 21 years, a total 1,222 surveys have been completed, finding 9,211 GPM of leaks and water losses, equating to 4.841 Billion gallons of water waste eliminated.

Of course, it's a never ending fight.  Just because a 45 GPM leak is found and fixed in City A, doesn't mean a new leak won't manifest itself next year in the same city.  But the experience gained over the past 21 years and passed along to the municipal water suppliers of the state will surely keep them more vigilant and on the look-out for future leaks - which, by the way, are revenue robbers.  Those 9,211 GPM of leaks found over the past 21 years has taken over $10,694,000.00 of revenue from those cities.  And that cost doesn't even include the cost to the cities to pump, treat and deliver those leaking supplies.  I think it's a pretty good set-up.  

What Is Your H2O Score?

I was contacted Friday by David Snopek regarding a project he and fellow students are working on which is called What is your H2O score?  The H20Score effort is a social enterprise designed to empower water consumers (both business and residential) to become more water efficient by helping them understand their water usage.  Basically you enter your home or business address and how many people are at the location and it puts that location's per capita water use on a nifty Water-Use-O-Meter for contemplation.  The idea is presumably to get those users thinking about their water use compared to other similar sized households, and more importantly, how they can use even less water.

The project is in the last few days of a fund-raising campaign - trying to raise enough capital to obtain the data from 100 additional cities in the final 100 days of 2011.  The data base runs from individual addressed water use data obtained by the project through freedom of information requests or being provided by the cities voluntarily.  This data is then processed and put out there for the world to see - as long as you enter a valid address within a city contained in the database.

I don't know what to think.  The effort probably doesn't hurt anything and should get some users thinking about water conservation in their municipal setting.  While I'm comfortable with the H2OScore's motives I'm not completely convinced of everyone else's motives.  For example, the group just added the City of Wheeling, IL to their data base, and they say on their blog:  "Recently, Wheeling has been planning development centered around its Metra ties with Chicago."  You follow Wheeling's "development plan" link provided by the blog, and read: "Each design....functions as a step toward a final goal, bringing the village a flexible framework to guide future development."

I have to ask... Does asking everyone in Wheeling to cinch up their belts and conserve water to promote future development constitute a true water use conservation paradigm?  Or a planned growth and development program based on the cheapest source of new water available that is more likely to increase water use in the long run?  Of course, there are personal benefits to conserving water, too (namely lower water bills) regardless of what motives your city might have.

I guess it all depends on why you want to conserve water in the first place and who wants it done.  If Wheeling is currently sustainable in their water use and wants more growth, then they'll want to conserve water use hoping to stay sustainable after the new growth.  If they're not sustainable any longer and need conservation to regain sustainability, then new development should be off the table.  If H2OScore wants to bring about water use conservation for the sake of using less water, then I'm guessing this may not be the best way to achieve it unless the city has this goal as well.  All this means in some cases H2OScore will be helping the cause for water conservation, and in some cases could be assisting in creating more growth and water use demand.  However, in either case it could be the individual water users themselves who get a more clear picture of the realities of water use - both their own and of their city fathers.  This would be beneficial.

I don't know if the Water-Use-O-Meter comparisons are exactly correct yet, but I like very much the fact that they will eventually expand the comparisons to make them much more meaningful - hence more individually useful. The triple comparison is a very good idea.

To the extent that cities really want to develop a water use conservation ethic in their water users - for the sake of using less water - I applaud the efforts of the H2O group.  To the extent that individual water users can use this tool to become aware of their use in relation to the total water supply, and what decisions are being made about all these elements, I think this effort can be positive as well. 

If you're interested, visit their webpage (linked, above) and consider a donation.  I thank David Snopek for his dialog in helping me understand this interesting effort of empowering individuals to eventually get the water conservation they expect and want.  Pay them a visit.

2012 Farm Bill Field Hearing - Wichita, KS

Kudos for Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) for conducting their second 2012 Farm Bill field hearing in Wichita, KS last week.  I can't stress how much help a well designed farm bill could be for water conservation efforts in water stressed areas.

Historically the farm bill has been blamed for promoting fencerow-to-fencerow corn production due to it's design and implementation, which of course, does little for curbing water use in irrigated ag areas.  So, we were thinking that a farm bill that would promote less water intensive cropping choices - especially in water stressed or enhanced management areas - could conserve water at no additional program cost.  This is apparently a very difficult thing to do, but we asked again, anyway. 

We also asked for a crop insurance program that would insure limited irrigation operations.  This would actually reduce liability and be less expensive than the current program.  It'd allow irrigators to implement a water conserving, limited irrigation plan on land that had been fully irrigated, but also receive a critical level of crop insurance discounted proportionately with the expected yield goals of their limited irrigation plan.  This could save a lot of water as well, so we asked for it.

We also asked that NRCS EQIP and AWEP programs support partial water use set asides - allowing producers to enroll the least efficient portions of their irrigation operations rather than the entire irrigated acreages.  The water conservation would be the same, at reduced program costs, while returning a higher economic return for the producer. 

These are just three ways that the current fam bill could reduce program costs while resulting in water conservation.  We'd hope they'd only be offered in closed areas (where no new appropriations are being approved) and where the post program water use could be monitored enough to insure a true water savings.  We'll see.

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 - Post Activity

As already reported, Kansas Governor Brownback's water summit was held July 21, 2011 in Colby.  It was attended by 400 or so folks from across Kansas and even a smattering of people from our neighboring states.  There were no shortage of ideas provided by those involved.  As I said before, the complete list of ideas is supposed to be published on the Kansas Water Office website, but it's not been posted as of this writing, so I'll point you again to the preliminary capture of ideas which are here.  Suffice it to say that I have one issue with this capture which has been brought to the attention of the KWO.  I'll be interested in seeing if it is addressed in the final posting. (More about this below)

Anyway, all the ideas will be handed off to a 21-member select committee that was just recently appointed by the chairperson of the Kansas Water Authority.  This committee is made up entirely of western Kansas stakeholders and contains no water professionals (water agency types - either federal, state or local).  They will meet for the first time August 9 in Dodge City and will open with two issues:  What should be done with the Kansas abandonment statutes to foster better conservation?; and Should the intensive groundwater use control area laws be amended to foster more local use?

While I still have mixed feelings on the abandonment statutes (previous post here), it is the IGUCA laws that I am excited about.  I think there can be small changes made to the existing laws that will get the local folks far more interested in using this approach for new enhanced management approaches.  This alone was well worth the effort to me.  But it remains to be seen what other issues will follow these two as this process plays out.  My issue with the process (mentioned earlier in this post) has to deal with the state's broadening of the comments made during the summit.  While individuals did suggest law changes or retention for the abandonment, IGUCA, personal property rights and water use flexibility portions of the statutes, I heard no one suggest that every law and regulation needs a serious review and reconsideration - which is what became characterized by the KWO and is currently posted on the web page as public comment number 2.  Maybe someone said it in one of the breakout sessions, but I didn't hear it.

Of course, if this comment prevails, every aspect of the Kansas water appropriation act now becomes open for change - including the very most fundamental aspect of the entire system - the prior appropriation system.  This could get real serious in a hurry.  Anyway, all in all I think some positive things will have a chance to come out of this effort in a fairly short period of time.  Let's cross our fingers.

UPDATE - (August 5, 2011):  The full slate of public comments are now posted on the Kansas Water Office website.  There are 3 links under the heading:  Stakeholder Input from Summit Small Group Sessions. 

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.

Water Rights Conservation Program - Kansas

Kansas had a water rights conservation program (WRCP) that ended December 31, 2009 due to budget cutbacks.  It was a jointly conceived and developed program that allowed valid water right holders to set their water right (use) aside for a number of years and not become subject to abandonment for non-use.  And the best part, it was a free program for the water right owners.

When the budget crisis hit in 2008, the state agencies began jettisoning all non-core programs (not required by statute) and the WRCP was one of these.  It was developed and operated out of the goodness of the state agency's heart.  This program's demise was lamented by many because it was fairly well used - with almost 1,000 water rights enrolled - some of those having been idle for as many as 15-20 years.

With a lot of work and convincing, we were able to get the 2011 Legislature to statutorily embody this program, and require a $300.00 filing fee to cover all the state's administrative program costs.   I'm happy to announce that the program starts back up again July 1, 2011, and I've already had my first applicant asking to file - even though the application forms aren't even available yet.

There were a few other changes as well, like limiting the enrollment time to 2, 10-year enrollments with a maximum of 2 years between each enrollment.  All in all, the new program is better for all concerned and should run smoothly - completely fee funded.  I'll try and keep tabs on enrollment and cover this program again later.  It's a good thing when water rights in overappropriated areas can be set aside for conservation rather than be used for fear of being abandoned and forfeited.

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.

NW KS GMD 4 AWEP - March 4 Deadline

NRCS and Three Groundwater Management Districts Partner through Agricultural Water Enhancement Program

Application Cutoff Date March 4, 2011

Eric B. Banks, State Conservationists for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Kansas, announced recently that irrigators in northwest and southcentral Kansas in designated priority areas are once again eligible to conserve water and improve water quality on agricultural working lands through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP). Through AWEP, the USDA will leverage additional resources and services from conservation partners. USDA NRCS administers the program and enters into agreements with conservation partners to help landowners plan and implement conservation practices in priority areas established through the agreements.

“Three Kansas groundwater management districts (GMDs) partnered with other local agencies and organizations to submit AWEP proposals that were approved,” said Banks. The GMDs began partnering with NRCS through AWEP in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Producers in the project areas have until March 4, 2011, to apply for this program at their local NRCS office.

Project areas are shown on a map at http://www.ks.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep :

Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 (GMD No. 4) was funded for a three-year period receiving almost $2.7 million in FY 2010. Six designated agricultural areas are eligible to directly conserve groundwater. To address the aquifer overdraft concern, NRCS and the GMD No. 4 seek to convert irrigated to dryland cropland acres in portions of Cheyenne, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas Counties.

I can't stress enough, if you are in one of the GMD 4 HPAs and are interested in transitioning irrigated acres to conserve the groundwater, get with the GMD office of your local NRCS.

Will It Be Water Or Economy in Kansas?

An interesting set of dynamics is underway in Kansas over a possible showdown between economic stimulation and water conservation.  When you think about it, it has always been a constant tug of war between these two philosophies.  How many government decisions are made to spur the economy which have had negative water conservation implications?  And how many water conservation decisions have had negative economic implications?  I have said many times, until we can design and implement government policy that addresses BOTH the reduction of water use AND the increase of economic productivity, we're not addressing the bigger issue.  I've blogged on this before, but I digress.

Now to the point at hand.  Kansas' former Agriculture Secretary, who in that position was intensly interested and invested in water, water rights and water use efficiency, is now our new Governor who has campaigned on the almost singular platform of economic stimulation - first and foremost.  Not a word in his campaign about water.  It makes many of us wonder where the state's water conservation ethic will go now. 

Maybe the first test will be the Governor's reaction to the state's most aggressive water conservation program yet - the Water Transition Assistance Program (WTAP) - a program that will sunset after this year - 2011.  Pilot WTAP has committed about $1.5 million per year for the past 5 years to retire water rights and transition irrigated acres to dry land production, and it must be re-enacted to continue.  Of course, everyone knows that ag production drops as this water is conserved by the retirement of the water rights.  Therein lies the dilemma.

I tried three times during the campaign (through his Twitter account) to ask him about the "water plank" of his platform, but never got any response.  I guess I'll never know if he ignored me or if there was a disconnect between him and whomever he had running his Twitter account.  Anyway, I guess we'll see soon enough, because water is getting no less important in Kansas, and the Governor will have to weigh in soon.  If I chose to lay a bet, I'd be betting on economic development over water conservation, but....

More Water Conservation In Kansas

Well, the interim legislative committee hearings have wrapped up and much of the testimony has not changed from the February presentations.  Kansas Farm Bureau still opposes a new "conservation" use type for a variety of reasons - mostly revolving around the ability of every water right in the state being able to change their right to conservation - for very long periods of time.  The GMDs still want a conservation approach that addresses all 6 of the issues described in our previous (October 1, 2010) post. Kansas Livestock Association wants the former Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP) back again. The state agencies want the new conservation use type that most everyone else thinks is too novel and far-reaching to jump into just now.

The interim Legislative committee during it's discussion session seemed to lean toward re-instating the old WRCP program - with providing fees or funding for it - while allowing the new conservation use type concept to continue developing. 

As discussed here earlier, the new conservation use type is an interesting approach, with several benefits.  But, it also has a few unknown elements that will be hard to predict beforehand - and thus remain pretty concerning.  The permanent change of the water right is one of these unpredictable elements.  While it'll solve the conservation funding issues rather nicely, and it does appear to address with certainty the process for changing water rights back into recognized uses, it doesn't leave enough certainty as some would like. The fact that the "public interest" is required to be considered in all change applications should have everyone wondering what that public interest will look like in the future. In fact it could become the factor that does not allow the chief engineer to change all (or any) of the water right back into a consumptive use of water when that time comes.  And this may induce enough uncertainty into the process to dissuade some from partaking.

I do believe these issues could be addressed in a well-thought-out statutory amendment designed to implement this new approach to conservation, but I'm less certain about our collective wills to achieve it.  Ah, the ole water politics venue may be alive and well in Kansas, but I'm not for sure. I hope not, because the citizens of the state usually end up on the short end of the results if they are.  Anyway, I for one am willing to consider the concept further.

Water Conservation in Kansas

With the elimination of the Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP) at the end of 2009 because of fiscal shortfalls, most of us in the state started working on a replacement program that would cover its cost. For those who don't know, WRCP allowed any valid water right owner to enroll a water right for 5 to 10 years for conservation purposes - without fearing loss of the right for non-use. We had about 800 rights in the program when it was eliminated, but more than that had participated over the years.

We looked at a number of options for funding, but for one reason or another none were satisfactory to the state agency running WRCP.  Through this very open discussion, a few other issues were identified which we all agreed to try and fix while we were at it.  In the end, six elements of an acceptable water conservation program were agreed upon:

1) a definite time period a water right could be enrolled;
2) a fee funded program design to address the agency funding issues;
3) the ability to cap the well and store equipment while enrolled;
4) only to be available in over-appropriated areas;
5) full certainty of the water right both entering and exiting the program; and
6) controlling administration calls by those enrolled.

Three proposals were discussed - only one of which included all 6 elements - when out of the blue the Legislature introduces a 4th approach.  There was no shortage of ideas, but when the dust settled, the Legislative, and one portion of the state agency proposal passed.  Unfortunately, these two approaches, together, only addressed two of the six elements and have left most of us scratching our heads. 

Yet, possibly good news.  As I write this, we're preparing to start discussions with an interim Legislative Committee that has agreed to look at all these issues again.  Even if it's only because the state agency is promoting the rest of their proposal that didn't pass last year, this is heartening news - a second chance.  The problem now is the state's approach only addresses one more of the original elements (still leaving 3 unaddressed) and if passed, will be in conflict with parts the two actions just taken.  What a mess.

The five GMDs will be testifying once again (exactly as we did last year) on the need to get in place one conservation approach that addresses all 6 of the issues identified - and we don't really care which one it is. From my seat, it really shouldn't be this hard.  We'll see. 

Fed Program Changes?

I recently asked a host of entities (NRCS, KWO, DWR, SCC, GMDs, etc.) to begin a Kansas dialog on the potential benefits of tweaking EQIP and AWEP so that these 2 programs can be applied toward reducing consumptive water use (conserving water) AND minimizing any economic impacts as the water conservation is happening.

Both programs are now recognizing the much greater water conservation benefits of transitioning irrigated acres to dryland production – thus truly conserving 100% of the historic consumptive water use. To this end, the program developers are to be commended. But both programs have been focusing on complete water right set asides or conversions in order to qualify.

New economic and hydrologic modeling is convincingly showing that reducing the least efficient portion of water use from a number of irrigation systems will have less economic impact on a region than reducing the same amount of water use completely from fewer systems. These two approaches have the same hydrologic results, but different economic impacts.

GMD 4 is wondering if it is time to consider approaching USDA, NRCS and perhaps others in asking that water conservation programs such as EQIP and AWEP take fuller advantage of the modeling results to lower the economic impacts of their water conservation benefits? To do this, these programs will need to allow for partial consumptive water use reductions from a larger number of participants. This means that EQIP and AWEP are going to need changes accordingly. Are these issues important enough to start developing?

GMD 4 welcomes any comments, ideas or suggestions regarding an open dialog on this issue. Perhaps a specific set of AWEP rules should also be discussed as operating AWEP under EQIP rules has brought to light a few glitches – at least what we consider glitches.  Anyone else tracking these issues as well?

Oh, I sent the email request on July 7, and have not heard a word yet from anyone.  I hope they're still mulling it over.

New Conservation Use Type

Last Legislative session the idea of a new type of Kansas water use - “conservation” – was floated as an alternative to the elimination of the Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP). It stalled in a Senate committee when the chair did not see enough consensus. Kansas Ag Secretary Svaty has since indicated his continued interest in the idea, and there are indications it may be considered for interim Legislative study.

The essence of the program is that anyone wanting to conserve their water right by not using it would change the right from its current use type (irrigation, M&I etc.) to the new “conservation” beneficial use type created by the Legislature. The change would be permanent until an application is filed again to change it to another use type. As left last year, any water right in the state would be eligible and there would be no time limit a water right could exist as a conservation use water right.

While seemingly simple, this idea has some challenges. Some wanted only areas closed to new appropriations to have this option – believing that participation in non-closed areas could prevent new water right applications from being approved - thus underutilizing the state's water resources. Others felt the future change process from conservation could subject the water right to new (as-of-yet-developed) criteria - in other words, less assurance of what the water right will become when changed to some other use type in the future. Still others objected to the permanent nature of the change and felt there should be a time limit set. 

The Ag department had last session addressed the first of these issues with the promise of a regulation that would basically allow its division of water resources to let term permits for new uses that did not exceed the extent of water existing as conservation rights - and only for as long as the conservation rights existed.  This construct basically crafted a state brokerage in this regard.  While a creative fix, and close to being workable, it was offered very late in the process and never got enough time to gel. 

      

It is my opinion that the largest issue is that of the fundamental change in the water right when initially changed to a conservation use type. I can't help but think there will be hoops to jump through in changing it back to some other use type, and those hoops will benefit the state more so than the water right holder.  If we discuss this issue again in Kansas, my focus will be on this issue - not so much to be an opponent, but to insure that the process is clearly stated so that the water right owner understands what will have to be done, and what he or she will end up having, when the time comes.

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.

The Other Aspects of Conservation

Water conservation is pretty well supported and many people are working to make better use of water where supplies are limited.  Government programs are pouring millions of dollars into water use efficiency improvements - including the irrigated ag sectors.  It comes as little surprise to me that my efforts have been coming up seriously short to convince programs that irrigation efficiency improvements don't really conserve water very much at all - as this position is counter-intuitive at best.  Maybe I'm simply not articulate enough.

However, the fact that these efforts have been going on in areas that have not yet prevented new water resources development remains astounding to me.  What good does it do in an area of limited supply to conserve water and then allow more to be developed for new uses?  Nothing is gained except the added social and economic stress that is going to make real conservation just that much more difficult a few years down the road.

In my mind, the Kansas Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP) had the perfect design.  It paid a direct incentive per acre-foot of consumptive water use to permanently retire the water right and convert the irrigated acres to dry land production.  It was only available in areas where no new water rights were available and was based on actual historic water use.  No paper water rights were involved.

The next program in any limited supply area that professes to be conserving water should be asked a few hard questions.  Ask if real or paper water is involved.  Ask if new water is available that will compromise any conservation gains.  Ask if pumped water or actual consumptive water use is being conserved.  Only when all three of these conditions are met is there any real water savings.