Finally, A Water Treatment That Makes Sense

Chrysalis 8 is NEW, NEW, NEW.

Two teaspoons of Chrysalis 8 reduces the surface tension of a gallon of water to approximately 49 dynes per centimeter. If the water is allowed to sit the surface tension will drop to approximately 35 dynes.  This is staggering news. But there's more.

In the winter of 2005 these inventors had a  square wave frequency generator built with multiple programmable channels utilizing a quartz oscillator that creates very  precise frequencies with square wave forms. With frequency generators, whether used with plasma tubes, sound waves, etc., most researchers prefer square waves because they propagate harmonics. The reason for using multiple channels was to create a standing, or scalar wave from the six individual Solfeggio healing frequencies:

UT - 396 Hz -associated with releasing emotional patterns
RE - 417 Hz -associated with breaking up crystalized emotional patterns
MI - 528 Hz - relates to crown chakra; Dr. Puleo suggests an association with "DNA integrity"
FA - 639 Hz - associated with whole brain quadrant interconnectedness
SOL - 741 Hz - associated with intuitive states, non linear knowing
LA - 852 Hz - associated with a pure love frequency: unconditional love.

These original sound frequencies were used in the early Gregorian Chants, such as the great hymn to St. John the Baptist,  that were lost centuries ago. The chants and their special tones were believed to impart healing when sung in harmony during religious masses and were rediscovered by  Dr. Joseph Puleo.  Rather than encode the six frequencies individually in a linear pattern as in individual formulas one would hear on a CD, these inventors generated each in one of the channels and synthesized them together creating a standing wave. Although "synergy" is used to sell automobiles now it remains a fact that standing or scalar waves are created by multiple individual longitudinal waves and are more powerful than the sum of the parts than the frequencies taken in one at a time. They are an important part of their work.  Used too often destructively, scalar waves can be used wonderfully to heal and uplift.

The synthesis of the six tones is encoded in Chrysalis 8 as a standing wave, greater than the sum of the parts, during the torus implosion  method that is used to lock frequencies into their water based formulas - and they last for months rather than the minutes that would otherwise occur since water normally reverts quickly back to a disorganized state.

Now that I am aware of these fantastic properties, I'm thinking it'd be great for boosting corn yields - talk about production potential.  Let's see, at two teaspoons per gallon, that'd be 97,755,300 teaspoons per center pivot.  Guess I'd better be looking into the price of this stuff before I take it to the board with a recommendation.  It's always something...

Wait, there's a disclaimer:  All information for information purposes only. No products are sold to treat, prevent or cure any disease. If a product sold here is not a nutritional/dietary supplement as defined by the DSHEA act; then it is sold for research/educational purposes only. ASC International only makes claims that the product is what we say it is and has the purity we claim it has. We make no other claims for these products and we cannot be held responsible for what you do with them. Please exercise caution and wise judgment.

Water Rights Markets - Again

"While small in number in recent years, sales of water rights are expected to accelerate as the pressure continues on a finite supply of water."

"Farmers of high-value crops, developers and cities all are looking for water."

"The state Department of Ecology is trying to encourage the water market by acting as a clearinghouse for information for both potential sellers and buyers. The agency has itself been a buyer to bolster instream flows."

"We have a firm belief in a market solution...That is what we want to be focusing on a lot over the next decade."

These quotes are all from a recent article:  Yakima River Basin -- A Market Solution  By David Lester, Yakima Herald-Republic.

***************************

Water Markets are being touted by many as the solution to the problem of allocating finite water supplies. By their own admission there are various interested parties in areas where marketing is being tried and the expectation is that there will be many more. 

I can see the value of this approach in areas yet to be developed, or even in areas just reaching their full development.  But what about areas that are already overdeveloped?  If there are no sellers, nothing happens.  If the price of water rises enough to move sellers, and full consumptive water use transfers to new users, the area likely benefits economically, but it still remains overdeveloped.  That's not a solution.  If your market only allows for 75% of the historic consumptive water use to be marketed (for conservation purposes) who pays for the value of the other 25%?  And what if the economic returns can't make up the previous value of that 25%? 

In Lester's posterchild case, a former irrigated alfalfa farm sold water rights to a classy, upscale winery 60 miles away who then drilled groundwater wells to take the former surface water rights.  The argument was hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional economic gain and more jobs.  This claim is no doubt true, but were the new groundwater wells evaluated to make sure they would have no negative impact (impairment) on existing wells in the new area?  What if 10 new wineries want to do the same thing in the same area?  What if a poorly managed, high pollution-risk factory bought and transferred these same water rights? 

I can only assume that some regulating agency/entity would control all these less than undesirable outcomes, but then, you no longer have such a free market.  And everyone knows what managed markets are capable of.  Besides, who thinks a state agency bidding for water rights to keep a stream flowing will compete well with a world-class winery?  Or a micro-chip production facility?   Or even a corporate hog operation?  It may not be a big thing to everyone, but the social fabric and economic base of an area relying heavily on a market-driven water rights allocation solution can easily change over time.  Of course, in an overdeveloped water basin the economic and social bases are going to change anyway as the resource depletes - at best becoming smaller and less significant over time. 

I'm not anti-market for water solutions. In fact, there are water and water right markets I don't fully understand - like the all-in water rights auctions and the many and varied state and local water banks created - including various lease markets.  But I have yet to find a water or water rights market that addresses the social aspects of water rights and water usage, or, when taken to the nth degree doesn't eventually exclude all of the lower economic, but nonetheless equally important, water uses of an area.  Are these simply trade-offs that must be endured for the overall good of the system?  Is the highest bidder always the best use of water?

So I simply say take a look at marketing options carefully before committing.  They all tend to look good and operate pretty well at first, but when they kick in and start running at full speed and efficiency, I'm not sure they all take me where I think we should go.

Water Representation in Kansas

It's been an ongong discussion in Kansas since I came in 1977 - the irrigation water users are too well represented on the water policy-making boards and this results in the situation of the fox guarding the henhouse. 

They argue that the irrigation folks dominate the GMD's (which are supposed to represent all water users and water uses), and worse yet, the Kansas Water Authority, which is the major policy-making body in the state for water - all of this at the expense of John Q. Public and every other water user group.  They point to the fact that irrigation uses 80% (or more) of the water in the state, which is correct, as if this unbalanaced water usage is because irrigators have come to dominate the policy-making water venues.  I'd argue that irrigation has always used a dominant portion of the state's water and because they did, they were provided the representational numbers they have.  To have done otherwise would have unfairly under-represented this group.

It's not a lot different than Legislative representation.  Populous Johnson County gets more House seats than does rural Thomas County.  But it's not that the Johnson County population is larger because they have more Legislative representation to work the system better, but because the people were already there and deserved that level of representation out of fairness.

One difference in these two comparative systems is that Legislative representation gets adjusted every 10 years through reapportionment - to keep the balance - whereas water representation does not.  It'd be an interesting exercise to see what GMD and KWA representation irrigation water use should actually be getting based on use, and also how a reapportionment process would shift these numbers over time.  Irrigation water use in GMD 4 pushes 98% of the total use, so I suspect our irrigators could be under-represented on some of the boards and authorities.  Hey, but who's complaining?

Besides, in the final analysis, the Kansas Legislature decides all state policy, and in this venue I assure you that the irrigation industry is under represented.  Besides, many think the lawyers and the real estate folks are the foxes guarding the legislative henhouse, so let's deal with that issue too.  Or, we could go Issue and Referendum and bypass the entire representational system altogether.

Governor's Water Summit - Colby, KS

Kansas Governor Brownback spent most of the day today in Colby listening to 350 or so Kansas water users discuss and offer ideas about the state's most prolific aquifer - the Ogallala.  The questions were:  What do you think the future of the Ogallala is?  What roles should individuals play?  and How can Governor Brownback's administration help achieve whatever goals are desired?

After three framing talks - on the current hydrologic status of the Ogallala (by Kansas Geological Survey); an economic perspective (by Kansas State University); and aspects of a common-pool resource (by Kansas State University) - a roundtable of 14 invited persons representing a wide variety of water users across the state introduced themselves and briefly gave their suggestions on Ogallala concerns from their perspectives.

The next session was breakout discussion groups of about 25 persons each who were asked to answer the original summit questions.  Moderators captured the ideas and comments without attribution, which were then individually voted upon - the highest counted ideas going forward.

From my discussions with many participants throughout the day, I'd say several ideas were universal enough that I'd guess they will be likely survivors.  These were (in no particular order):  1)  Local participation and involvement was critical; 2) one approach/regulation/solution does not fit all - wide variability of situations will require a wide variety of approaches; 3) the state's current policy of "use it or lose it" should be eliminated as a disincentive to water conservation; 4) ways must be found to grow the ag economy while simultaneously reducing water use; 5) federal farm programs and other federal efforts need tweaking to accommodate Kansas' specific economic needs; 6) a more user-friendly intensive groundwater use control area (IGUCA) process would be beneficial to fostering more use of this potentially valuable tool; 7)  value-added ag activity is beneficial; 8) water quality is equally important to water quantity; and 9) more flexibility in use of water (specifically in irrigated ag and municipal use) can help conserve water.

In any event, all the discussion points and final ideas will be posted on the Kansas Water Office website.  It is important to know that these ideas are just the beginning of these discussions.  They, and any new ones provided will be considered by the newly appointed Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee (OAAC) under the Kansas Water Authority.  This committee and it's work will also be posted on the KWO webpage.  All in all, I was pleased with the effort and am thinking at this time that some positive things are likely to come out of the effort.

Closing comments:  I'm still not convinced that the "use it or lose it" is as big a disincentive to water conservation as this very large group seemed to express, but there will be time to address it.  This issue is simply broader than characterized in this 1/2 day session and is worthy of additional discussion.  I was also surprised at the number of non-Kansas folks in attendance - a smattering of folks from Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas that I personally know and saw - and there most likely were more.  I felt that the roundtable participants used far too much time in their self-introductions - time that could have been used in the breakout sessions that were rushed - at least ours was.  Other than that I was pleased with the event and very appreciative of the Governor's time in beginning these important discussions.  There will be more later...

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.

Much Misunderstood Kansas Water Rights Concept

"Use it or lose it" is what most folks call it.  It's the original prior appropriation doctrine concept that basically says if you don't use your water right for some length of time, it becomes subject to abandonment because there is likely someone else waiting in line that can use it.  It also prevents folks from getting water rights and sitting on them - speculatively or otherwise.  The concept does tend to create economy as it leans toward making folks use their water rights.

Of course few concepts in western water law are absolute or totally black and white, and the abandonment statutes in Kansas water law are no different.  As we debate water conservation in Kansas, one state university professor has picked up this oft misunderstood mantra and said:

Unfortunately, Kansas water laws only reinforce these incentives against conservation. They require irrigators to use their water rights or lose them.

From my position, this is far too simple of a statement when Kansas water laws are considerably more sophisticated in this regard.  First, there are 11 reasons for non-use that constitute "due and sufficient cause" - any of these reasons will maintain an unused water right.  Second, a water right need only be used once in every 5 years to maintain it. Third, there are several chances to work with the division of water resources on a specific water right "conservation plan" that will maintain the right while not being used.  Fourth the Legislature has provided (in closed areas) two conservation tools:  1) the Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP) that provides for non-use (conservation) for just over 20 years; and 2) making non-use a due and sufficent cause for non-use in closed areas so long as the well is maintained.  The truth is there are ample ways to conserve water in Kansas - all water use types including irrigation - while not eliminating the very important underlying concept of truly abandoned water rights.  However, none of these, except for the maintenance of wells in closed areas, allow for a perpetual, non-use status.

The "use it or lose it" concept will be discussed during the Governor's upcoming Water Summit (see July 6 post).  I hope Kansas recognizes the importance of the underlying reasons for the state's abandonment statutes and retains some version of it.  Whenever the water rights in any area must be adjusted due to lack of supply, do we really want to divvy up a reduced water supply among water rights that have actually been abandoned but are still sitting on the books?  This may be a bigger problem later than dealing with these rights today.  Just thinking out loud...

Governor's Water Summit

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

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

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

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

Reporting Water Use in Kansas

Water right reporting in Kansas has been attended to quite a bit by all state and local groups.  Of course, the division of water resources administers the effort, but many others help - including the local GMD's, the Kansas Water Office and the Kansas Geological Survey.  The annual reporting system is really good, but it's not perfect.

One of the issues is reporting your maximum amount and rate regardless of what you pumped.  Unfortunately there have been too many advantages in the past for doing this.  First, the water right's certification process is based on the maximum water use reported in the period of record, and it uses these reports to establish the final certificate amount.  It's not hard to see what an advantage high reported water use would provide in this process.  However, any such advantage ceases to exist after the water right has been certified.  Unfortunately, most water users hear the high pumpage certification mantra and then forget all the rest.  Requiring meters and the reporting of start and ending meter readings puts a halt to this practice.

Equally as problematic are the various incentive programs for setting aside or voluntarily forfeiting water rights - they almost always base the payment on historical reported water use.  The more water you have been using, the more acrefeet of water you are eligible to retire, the better the water right looks to those wanting it retired, and the higher your payment is.  Again, most water users just retain the idea that high reported water use is good, and forget that the numbers being used are always in the past.  Of course, meters and reporting metered values solves this problem as well - at least for the time the meter record is available.  For the guy that has always reported excessively, he still wins.

However, the notion that high reporting is good still lingers regardless of the attempts to dispell it.  Just glad we metered all wells in GMD 4 and don't have to worry a whole lot about this issue any more.  Of course, the state has found a few creative types who have not pumped their full annual quantity and are inflating their ending meter readings to give them a cushion next year if they should need it - a very innocent form of private water banking in the eyes of the water users doing it no doubt.

The sad thing about all of this is how the water modeling being done is being affected.  Bottom line is that inaccurate water use reports screw up much more than most think.