Colorado State University - AWCC

I first heard of the Ag Water Conservation Clearinghouse (AWCC) website about 6-7 years ago - just as the pundits at Colorado State University were still conceiving its platform and ultimate function.  They had lofty goals then when they announced they'd like to eventually capture and make available all the irrigation literature in the midwest that dealt with irrigation water use conservation and efficient use.  I had some idea of the amount of material that was being generated on these topics by Kansas State University alone, so their goal I saw quickly would be quite enormous.

I see today, as I visited the site again, that they have expanded their focus worldwide - now encompassing many different climate regions, technologies, political and legal systems, etc., etc.  Impressive!

One thing I noticed on their website was the following, completely unqualified, comment on Ag Water Conservation:

What is Ag Water Conservation?

• Increased crop water use efficiency
• Improved irrigation application efficiency
• Increased capture and utilization of precipitation
• Decreased crop consumptive use
• Increased irrigation water diversion and delivery efficiencies
• Reduced water use through adoption of conservation measures and new technologies for water management

Without any explanation or point of reference on this list, I immediately started running it through my definitions, and quite frankly, not many of them were matching well with my list.  Until I came to "Decreased crop consumptive use", that is.  I don't know if the authors of this list meant for the answer to be "any of these" or "all of these", but if I get to vote, I'm voting that all of them need to occur before you get any real ag water conservation. 

Anyway, I'll check back in on the site a while later.  Maybe there'll be more information as to this listing.  And I wish them all the luck in the world in capturing the universe of ag water conservation materials.    

Robert Glennon Coming to Colby

Dr. Robert Glennon is the Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy in the Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona.  He also is a published author including Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America's Fresh Waters in 2002 and Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It (2009).

By invitation of the Max Pickerill Lecture Series, Dr. Glennon will be visiting the Colby Community College campus (Frahm Theater) on October 27, beginning at 7:00 P.M. to present on water issues of interest.  The public is invited to this free lecture.  That means you are invited if you can make it to Colby by that time.  I hope some of you can attend.

I am almost finished reading Unquenchable so maybe I'll have a question or two for him.  I also plan on getting my copy of his book autographed.  Maybe I should ask for the authograph BEFORE I ask the questions...

Thomas County Kansas - March 12, 1885

A bit more NW Kansas history.  I ran across a copy of the March 12, 1885 edition of the Thomas County Cat - the first newspaper in the County, and incidentally, the first edition of the paper.  The County was created in 1873, but did not petition for County status until the Summer of 1885 when the population began to expand.  The January, 1885 population was 161 hearty folks. By October of the same year, the population was declared to be 1,900.  Based on this growth and positive future, the residents petitioned for a separate County organization and on October 8, 1885 Kansas Governor Martin proclaimed it official, Thomas County was established.  Back to the Cat.

The first edition of the Cat was published before it was an official County.  It reports that a townsite (that would likely become the County seat) was under planning near the center of the area and would be named Colby.  Oddly, this site was some 20 miles North of the established railroad at that time in Monument, Kansas.  In reading the paper, I was struck as to how many references there were to water, creeks and wells - at least 20 on the first page alone.  These words go to great length to describe every creek in the County, and most of the wells that already existed - by owner and depth to water.  In describing the future town site, it says:

...a townsite has been located 2 1/2 miles north of the Colby postoffice, on the Priaire Dog, and the name proposed for the new town is Colby. Water can be obtained on the new town site at a depth of 50 feet.

In reading the front page I also learn that M. Woodcock and his son-in-law are engaged in boring wells; the postmaster at Streator grows corn and has a fine well 80 feet deep; Charles Cooper and Almond Vincent are engaged in boring wells and are setting up to market windmills; Martin Williams' well is only 17 feet deep; William Reed's well is 110 feet deep; Charlie Coover's well is 66 feet deep; Henry Kneudsen raised 120 bushels of onions and 200 bushels of potatoes and only irrigated his garden twice from his windmill; The Bohemian John (can't read last name) has a well 66 feet deep; plenty of good water is available by digging from 40 to 140 feet deep; and stock of all kinds do fine, but have to be watered at a well.

Fair to say that water has always been pretty important in Thomas County, Kansas.  Oh, and if you're curious, a well today in Colby would find the water table somewhere near 140 feet deep.

The Future of Prior Appropriation?

A report by the Environmental Law Institute: Western Water in the 21st Century – Policies and Programs that Stretch Supplies in a Prior Appropriation World - was released June, 2009 and says that prior appropriation state laws need to do some things to soften the added pressures their laws are expected to feel as supplies shrink and demand increases.  Basically two things:  Reduce disincentives to sustainability; and enhance market incentives to sustainability.  To reduce disincentives it lists a number of issues including:  addrerss the no forfeiture laws; address instream flow rights; embrace water banks; more water storage (especially groundwater); and a few more.

Market incentives to sustainability include allowing the use of conserved water and dealing with a robust water transfer processes that is expedited, protects third parties and is more generally more flexible.

The report also says that prior appropriation state laws have been fortunate enough to have survived earlier difficult times through "..deep-rooted entrenchment in practice and law..”.  The author (Adam Schempp) says this like shallower, less substantial laws would have been better?  And even if states do implement these recommendations (assuming none have them implemented already) what state is not going to try and deep-root these in practice as well? 

I was interested in this report in light of the new conservation ideas Kansas has been discussing of late - a replacement Water Rights Conservation Program (WRCP); a new, statutory Conservation use type; and a few others.  Our GMD 4 new conservation ideas clearly address some of these recommendations, but not all of them.  For this reason I’m not sure I agree with the report relative to all their recommendations, because I think Kansas is close to getting it right – at least in terms of what our conservation needs are.

It is possible that the author has a different concept of conservation, however.  The report says it offers its recommendations to “..lead to more efficient, adaptive, or sustainable water use decisions.”  Without definitions of efficient, adaptive and sustainable, it's hard to tell what the institute is really trying to convey.  Anyway, the full report is available on line at the ELI Website.  It's a compact 82 page report that gives specific examples from the following states:  AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, TX, UT, and WA.

Ag Water Conservation?

Been reading a lot about water conservation lately where some claim the solution is as simple as controlling price – raise the price and conservation will occur. This seems logical for some situations – most notably for domestic and industrial uses which are supplied by a common water system under a common water right that is controlled by someone else who is responsible for both the delivery system and the new conservation ethic. Easy as pie and quite frankly you meet two goals at once. Not only do you encourage less water use, but you also gain the capital to maintain and eventually replace the delivery system for the common good (as long as you don’t price yourself out of the market).

But my concern is conservation in an irrigated ag setting - a compilation of thousands of individual delivery systems controlled by the thousands of water right owners using the water for individual profit motives and answerable to no one as long as they don’t exceed their water right. The most obvious way to control the price of ag water would be a mandated government severance tax on water (either via traditional means or being couched in terms of a pump tax, water right maintenance fee or whatever). But since the government doesn’t have any system to maintain, the only reason to impose such a severance tax on ag would be to use less water as a means to conserve. This will also reduce production and economic returns.

If “conservation” is defined as either maintaining current production with less inputs, or, increasing production with the same inputs (both increases in efficiency) then the severance tax is wrong because it will do neither. Yes, I know what you’re thinking – just increase the efficiency of the ag water use and conservation (less water use) happens automatically - without a severance tax or any other stimulus. Our experience has been that it costs so much money to increase ag water use efficiency that the producers are obligated to increase production to pay for it, and the exact opposite of water conservation occurs in nearly all cases – they consumptively use more water. I have discussed this issue before here.

Anyway, I’m asking all the water-mavens out there to offer ideas on “conserving” irrigation ag water – using market stimuli or otherwise – that does not also unreasonably impact the local economy. Email me here if you would rather not respond blog-publicly.