Water's Not Complicated - It's Completely Complex

I have always known how complicated water management and water policy was, but this rendition is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.  It's completely off the charts.  Go ahead, take a look at it - I dare you!

If you're not going to bite, that link takes you to an article on UNESCO's Global Water Forum site where the topic is "International Water Politics".  More precisely it's an article by Dr. Daniel Connell, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, that asks the question of how should we even compare water management schemes across political, cultural and legal landscapes.  It's the 11th of 11 articles in a larger series that can be perused here.

I've read the entire article, although I've not read the entire series. Bottom line for Dr. Connell is that there are 20 benchmarks of a mature, auto-adaptive river basin organization to implementing effective integrated river basin management.  This list was first developed by Bruce Hooper, but Dr. Connell agrees with it.  Then he goes on to say that while you need most of these benchmarks to succeed, having all 20 is not a guarantee of success because there is some "it" factor also required - that relates to purely cultural values associated with an outcomes approach (or some such notion).     

I also gather that groundwater management would have a different list of required benchmarks, since all the articles in this series seem to be focused on river systems, but it's not really clear that it would.  And again, I admit to not reading the entire series yet.

Anyway, I'm glad these caliber of folks are discussing and writing about water management, but I have to say their reports and articles are plenty theoretical and I'm guessing they'll never get effectively implemented because they may be the only ones that fully grasp the ideas.

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?

Global Water Management?

Today is October 15, 2010 and it is ActionBlogDay. The topic this year is “Water”. It’s a super easy subject for me because I’m a groundwater blogger, yet when I think about it, it shouldn’t be a difficult task for anyone since water touches just about every aspect of life on this planet today. Come to think of it, it’s touched every aspect of life on this planet from the very beginning of time. Period.

So what should we be saying about water in this venue? Many very important folks will be weighing in today, so what of merit can I possibly add to the discussion? What answers do I have for us all? I’m sorry, but all I have handy today is the following dose of reality - and hope?

To me, it seems that most people feel managing water is quite easy – figure out how much you have available, then don’t use any more. Instant sustainability, no future problems, bingo. Yet this is rarely the norm. Why is that? First, it’s not that easy to figure out precisely how much water is available in the long run – in either surface water or groundwater systems. Second, it’s been too easy to stretch out and add to your supplies from elsewhere. Third, never anticipated water quality degradation affects what you think your supplies might be in surprising ways – always negative. Fourth, the climate variability that used to just make it difficult to calculate what your supply is, is now changing those supplies directly. Fifth, sustainability is not an individual concept but a collective commitment. Add to these conditions the legal, social and economic influences plied upon the most necessary resource on earth, not-with-standing perhaps air itself, and we wonder why it gets so dicey.

Bottom line is that water has never been easy to manage and never will be. When someone steps up and declares the best times, places, quantities and uses of our global water supply, and everyone else agrees, and we have the political will and economic means to make it happen, then we’ll have our solutions. This seems to me to be the real challenge.

Drought Tolerant Crops and Low Flow Shower Heads

Monsanto and others are working ferverishly on bringing to market a drought tolerant corn variety - one that yields respectably with 30% less water.  As good of news as this is, I'm wondering if it'll save any water or just increase yields considerably with the same water use (or more).

It's the classic question of how's it going to be used?  Remember the low flow shower heads that were supposed to save water.  Turns out most people didn't particularly like the weak water stream and ended up taking longer showers - resulting in..., well you can complete this sentence yourself.

Until the irrigation water supply is reduced enough (either by water right and use restrictions or by physical limitations of the supply) my money is on an increase of water use by producers who almost always act toward maximum profit motives.  Yes, we will achieve more yield per unit of water, a production efficiency measure that is usually considered good, but the sad truth is that more water will be used, too.  This situation can be a real problem for areas needing to reduce consumptive water use.

To be fair, this is not the fault of the seed breeders - it is the responsibility of the water managers to restrict water use if it is desired that this new technology should reduce water use while maintaining production levels (income).  Heck, what we really need from Monsanto et. al., is a corn variety bred to yield 300 bushels per acre on 10 inches of irrigation water and which immediately dies when the 11th inch of irrigation water is applied.  Now we're sure to get water savings and increased income.  Good luck with this one. 

Water Generalizations are Just Wrong

The latest CAST paper is out - called "Water, People, and the Future: Water Availabilty for Agriculture in the United States".   To begin with, this paper only covers water issues in Califormia, Arizona, Florida and the Ogallala (High Plains) Aquifer, yet sports a much broader title.   I would not have titled this paper so.  It seems fairly well researched along the lines of the very limited set water activities it chose to include.  It missed so much more that should have been at least mentioned.  And finally, the overarching conclusions it makes are likely true in some places, but not all - too generalized for my taste.  This just isn't right.

For example, one statement in the Abstract is that "...increasing industrial and residential use will continue to limit the water available to irrigation."  Heck, this then has to be true - even in GMD 4 - for CAST says it's so.  I ask how can this be?  Our population is declining and our non-ag economy is shrinking.  If it weren't for our GMD regulations prohibiting new irrigation development, we'd have MORE water for ag.  Besides, in Kansas all ag water use (all non-domestic use, actually) have very controlled water rights.  If ag chose not to sell, lease or give these rights away, they would never be limited - regardless of what industry and residential use might do.  I guess the report is saying that it WILL happen because ag will always sell the water when the price gets high enough.  Who knows.

As if this were not enough, in the High Plains Aquifer part of the report, one header is:  "Hesitation to Adopt Water Use Regulations".  This section goes on to conclude that when water management discussions in the High Plains turn to the future, it is simply agreed that "something" needs to be done. (period)  I resent the implication that little if anything has been regulated in our portion of the Ogallala.  GMD 4 has shut off all new development in 6 designated areas, and since 1986 has made it practically impossible to get a new water right.  Every non-domestic well in the GMD has been ordered to be metered by the DWR with GMD 4 assistance.  The district successfully pressed for a forfeited water right on the first case of a meter being tampered with.  Our irrigation tailwater control regulation requires by order an immediate and permanent fix on all uncontrolled water, or we visit the local judge.  We remediated (by regulation) over 2,500 abandoned wells in just under 4 years.  And the rest of what they don't know about our operation just makes me want to scratch my head.

Finally, the paper calls for sustainable water management.  I can't argue too much about this.  But I often wonder about the possibility of the state (or even federal government) deciding to move our water elsewhere if we were to manage it sustainably.  Kansas does have a water transfer act that allows the movement of water that is excess to a local area, to another area.  That'd be a kick in the head after making all the sacrifices to get to sustainability. 

Bottom line, I guess the report makes a lot of good points, but it's not "spot on" everywhere and it shouldn't be written as if it were - at least not in my opinion.

Water Rights Conservation Program

Somewhere around the late-1970's as the water supplies became fully developed, Kansas consciously began the transition of its water law interpretation from "development" oriented, to a "water management" orientation. The laws weren't actually changing much, but their interpretations were - and I think rightfully so.

One of the knottier issues in this change was the "use it or lose it" mindset. Under development mode, those not using the water needed to give way to others who wanted to use it so that maximum economic benefit could be achieved right up to the moment of fully appropriating all the water supplies. By the process of forfeiting non-used water rights for maximum economic gain, non-used water rights were disadvantaged - some say penalized.

However, in the new, management phase of water, non-use needed to be rewarded rather than disadvantged - especially in areas that were over-appropriated and no one else could be given the water to use if it was forfeited. The common perception was that owners were using the water simply to keep their water rights intact. If this were true, where is the conservation ethic in this system? This is where the Kansas Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP) came into existence.

WRCP allowed water rights in over-appropriated areas to be set aside for 5 to 10 years for conservation, and to re-enroll for another 5 to 10 years afterwards. Each of these years was then considered "due and sufficient cause" for non-use (enrolled in a government program for conservation) so the water right could not be forfeited for non-use. This allowed water right owners the choice of not using their water while retaining ownership - but only in over-appropriated areas. Today, there are 977 water rights in this program statewide, not using 260,000 acrefeet of appropriated water.

Due to budget cuts, the state is poised to end WRCP, which by the way is not a statutorily mandated effort, but was crafted in this new, management-oriented interpretation period by regulation. I don't know how many of the people enrolled will start using their water again as they come out of their current contracts, but I suspect most will rather than face abandoning and forfeiting these property rights. This decision simply appears to me to be "penny wise and pound foolish" as the colonials would say, and certain to make water management a bit harder as we move on from here.

I think the state may also be concerned about keeping all the WRCP water rights "on the books" for the next few decades as this will pose other water management problems for a later time. But these later problems I think will be less-knotty then than the problems related to eliminating WRCP are going to be now.

Federal Water Interests

Seems our federal government is getting much more active in water these days. Last year two bills were introduced to work on the process of developing a national water policy. S. 2728 and H.R. 135 both propose the creation of a new group called the "Twenty-first Century Water Commission" - a group of federally appointed folks who are to study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy for future water needs. Similar in scope and nature, S. 2728 calls for a 9-member commission appointed by the President, Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader. They are provided $9 million and are given 3-years to make their recommendations.

H.R. 135 is an 11-member group appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate who are to be provided $12 million and be given 5 years to work their magic. While there is much borrowed language between these bills, H.R. 135 has far more detail as to what is to be studied. In both cases, there is much that the states and local water folks should be concerned about.

And just making its way into the process this year is the current working draft of a new bill (not numbered as of yet) called the "Sustainable Watershed Planning Act". This calls for a new federal agency - the Office of Sustainable Watershed Management (OSWM) to do much the same stuff - only with far more layers of boards and commissions, and a lot more money - $30 million/yr for the OSWM, and $250 million/yr for this group to entice their partners (states, locals, tribes, stakeholders and other interested entities) to see their vision. The Director of OSWM is slated to become the new and singular, federal water czar. There is even more to be concerned about in this draft bill.

There is the expected obligatory language that the planning groups (3, nested layers) are to consider state & local management activities, and are to be respectful of state water laws and state water jurisdictional responsibilities, but it never says these are exclusive to the states as they virtually are now. It even mentions that personal water rights cannot be affected - from transboundary aquifers only. This bill draft actually looks eerliy familiar to the earlier (failed) Western Water Policy Review Commission (WWPRC) effort of 1997. It also has a long way to go in my opinion.

On the positive side, if the federal OSWM and its nested boards could be trusted to share your state's water visions, there will be a lot of money available to implement many worthwhile programs - for the 10 pilot basins selected by the Director. This selection process probably won't be political at all, so it's a no-brainer that we should all jump on board and support this bill. Oh, and in his or her spare time, the Director is also charged with crafting a national water policy overarching everything. If you are interested in water, you should have a look.

One last point. As H.R. 135 was being debated, some wanted to revisit the work of a similar effort back in the late 1960's - that of the National Water Commission (NWC). The following is from that report:

While many support better coordination of federal water activities and a clearer national “vision” for water management, Congress has not enacted overarching water policy legislation since the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act. Instead, water policy has largely evolved through executive and judicial actions, in many cases in response to piecemeal legislation. Congress continually modifies federal water projects through amendments to existing projects and programs through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), Reclamation acts, water quality legislation, and appropriations decisions. Incremental and ad hoc evolution of water policy, however, is not surprising. Water management is complicated by past decisions and investments affecting a wide range of stakeholders pursuing different goals. Specifically, federal and state laws and regulations, local ordinances, tribal treaties, contractual obligations, and economies dependent on existing water use patterns and infrastructure all affect water management. Attempts to untangle such complexities involve many constituencies with differing interests, and success is difficult to achieve. Expectations for a commission to achieve change in a complex system resistant to transformation may be unreasonable; instead, the influence of a commission may lie in how its recommendations combine with other drivers to support policy evolution.

I have to ask what has changed since 1973 and 1997 that makes me feel comfortable that a new, Twenty-first Century (federal) Water Commission has got the right handle on the complexities of water?

Reducing Water Use

Our GMD is largely irrigation use - 97% plus. It then follows that if water use is to be reduced, working on a 10% reduction in the remaining 2% of usage is probably not the best approach. As such, we focus on the irrigation uses.

Traditional wisdom says "let's get more efficient with our irrigation use - we'll pump 20% less water." But, unfortunately this is not always going to be the case. Converting to higher efficieny irrigation can actually INCREASE water used by crops for production - even when less water is pumped and applied. Without a good understanding of what consumptive use was happening under the old irrigation systems, and specific constraints on irrigated acres and cropping patterns and irrigation management under the new systems, the conversions are not likely to save as much water as you calculate - if they'll save any water at all. They are, however, usually good for the producers' bottom lines.

Next usually comes: "Let's just regulate a 25% reduction in all water use." That'd work, but all water rights are different. 25% from the full water right is different than 25% from the partial right. And do you want to take this reduction from municipal, industrial, domestic and recreation rights as well? What about priority? Does the most senior right concede the same 25% as the most junior right? In Kansas where a water right is a property right to the use of the state's water, are there "takings" issues to be considered in a mandated reduction?

Usually someone gets around to the appropriation doctrine itself and calls for a 25% reduction based solely on priority. What happens if the most senior water rights to be protected are in the poorest part of the aquifer?

The market system usually gets air time, too. Water banking, water right auctions, transfers to higher economic uses, etc. But these can have significant impacts on the social fabric of the region because fundamental uses of water can change so much.

One thing is for sure - reducing water use by design is always about deciding if the water or the economy is more important, and then picking your poison. There is no way to change a deleterious trend without changing something about the system that caused the trend you want to change. This is why it's so hard to do.