Irrigation Leader April 2014

Volume 5 Issue 4

April 2014

Tom Birmingham: Fallowed Lands, Withered Communities: Adversity and Resilience in Westlands

The Importance of Storing Water

By Kris Polly

W

hen one speaks with Mr. Tom Birmingham, two things are very clear. The first is you are talking with a highly intelligent individual who has the rare ability to speak like a gifted writer writes. The second is the nearly unbelievable challenges faced by his farmers. The creativity, resilience, and sheer toughness they have shown to survive near zero and zero water allocations is remarkable. Drought, caused by nature or regulation, is a cruel thing, and the economic domino effect is far reaching.

The thing about drought from nature is that we know it will happen and that it can be prepared for. Drought from regulation is harder to understand, especially when results such as 40 percent unemployment are so visible.

During my time with the Bureau of Reclamation, I often heard Commissioner Bob Johnson explain the stark difference in storage on the Colorado River versus California. “The Colorado River has a watershed of roughly 15 million acre-feet, and storage behind Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, and the other dams on the river combined provide 60 million acre-feet of storage, or up to four times the annual flow of the river,” he would say.

“The state of California has watershed that is comparable

in size to the Colorado River. However, there is only about 8 million acre feet of storage, or about half of the annual watershed in California.” Commissioner Johnson said this many times to make the point that it is very difficult to survive extended drought without adequate water storage.

Some say conservation and reuse are the answers to the water woes of California. While conservation and reuse can be a big part of the answer in solving water supply problems anywhere, it is difficult to conserve and reuse something that has not be been collected and stored.

Another quote I often heard Commissioner Johnson say about water supply was that it was more important to “grow the pie than to fight over it.” In other words, stored water can solve a lot of problems caused by nature’s droughts and lessen other problems, such as drought caused by regulation.

Kris Polly is editor-in-chief of Irrigation Leader magazine and president of Water Strategies LLC, a government relations firm he began in February 2009 for the purpose of representing and guiding water, power, and agricultural entities in their dealings with Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal government agencies. He may be contacted at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

The Water and Power Report www.WaterAndPowerReport.com The Water and Power Report is the one-stop aggregate news site for water and power issues in the 17 western states. Sign up for the free “Daily” service to receive e-mail notice of the top headlines and press releases each business day.

2

Irrigation Leader

APRIL 2014

C O N T E N T S 2 The Importance of Storing Water

Volume 5

Issue 4

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for November/December and July/August by: Water Strategies LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Crotty, Senior Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting LLC, Copyeditor SUBMISSIONS: Irrigation Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions. However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved. Submissions are returned only upon request.

ADVERTISING: Irrigation Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads. For more information on rates and placement, please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Irrigation Leader is distributed to irrigation district managers and boards of directors in the 17 western states, Bureau of Reclamation officials, members of Congress and committee staff, and advertising sponsors. For address corrections or additions, please contact our office at Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Copyright © 2014 Water Strategies LLC. Irrigation Leader relies on the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contributor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Irrigation Leader magazine, its editors, or Water Strategies LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Irrigation Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies LLC or Irrigation Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

COVER PHOTO: Orchard taken out of production due to lack of irrigation water. Inset photo of Tom Birmingham, general manager/general counsel of Westlands Water District. Photos provided by Westlands Water District.

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

4 Fallowed Lands, Withered Communities:

Adversity and Resilience in Westlands

12 The Bottom Line: The Impact of the

Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders

By Leslie James

14 Finding a Win-Win Solution for Farmers

and Fish: Constructing a Fish Bypass on the Lower Yellowstone

By Mike Murphy

18 Wheeling Water: District Improvements

and Species Conservation

By Rick Dieker

22 Irrigation Project Grows Crops,

Recreation

By Kacie Thrift

MANAGER PROFILE 24 David Campbell INNOVATORS 26 Manufacturing Infrastructure and Jobs:

Northwest Pipe’s Saginaw Plant Expansion

WATER LAW 30 Between a Lone Star and a Dry Place:

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

By Steve Hernandez

3

Fallowed Lands, Withered Communities: Adversity and Resilience in Westlands

M

uch has been written on the drought withering away the farmlands of central California and other parts of the arid West. Lost in many of those stories are people whose lives revolve around growing food: the farmhands, the pickers, the grocers, the equipment salesmen, the truckers, the mechanics, the teachers—all the people who make up the communities that ring the San Joaquin Valley and valleys just like it.

Comprising more than 600,000 acres of western Fresno and Kings Counties, Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United States. Westlands farmers produce an amazing variety of crops that reach your local grocery store, including grapes, almonds, pistachios, asparagus, lettuce, apricots, and tangerines. Westlands provides water to an agricultural economy that supports 50,000 people in the communities of the San Joaquin Valley.

The Central Valley Project (CVP) helps bring Westlands’ service area to life. From reservoirs north of the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, out of the delta pumping plants, and down through the Delta–Mendota Canal, the district’s water ultimately resides in San Luis Reservoir. From there, more than 1,000 miles of metered underground pipe delivers water to highly productive farmland.

Tom Birmingham is the general manager/general counsel of Westlands, managing daily operations and representing the district’s policy interests within the state. Prior to his current position, Tom served as Westlands’ general counsel from 1995 to 2000. Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Tom to the Delta Vision Task Force, an advisory body that developed policy recommendations to address the supply and species issues in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Tom about the impact of drought on his district and the communities that surround it, the role that the Endangered Species Act has played in limiting allocations, and ways to move forward that benefit communities and species.

Kris Polly: Please describe the impact of drought on Westlands Water District and its farmers.

Tom Birmingham: It is difficult to talk about the impact of drought on Westlands Water District and

4

other south-of-delta agricultural water service contractors without putting it into some context. There has been a lot of discussion about the man-made drought in California.

There isn’t any question that the hydrologic conditions in California this year have dramatically reduced the amount of water available to Westlands and other southof-delta agricultural water service contractors, but in addition to the water supply reductions that are a result of hydrology, we have suffered reductions resulting from the implementation of various federal statutes, particularly the Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The restrictions imposed on the operations of the CVP under those statutes have greatly reduced the quantity of water available to Westlands and other south-of-delta agricultural water service contractors so that, even in an average hydrologic year, south-of-delta agricultural water service contractors receive only about a 40 percent allocation. The regulations have exacerbated the impacts of hydrologic drought in two ways. First, the regulations have actually reduced the quantity of water the farmers will receive this year. In addition, because farmers south of the delta farm in a perpetual water-short condition, tools that they would otherwise utilize during a hydrologic drought, like shifting to groundwater, have already been employed to deal with regulatory drought.

For example, 1977 was significantly drier than this year. Yet, in 1977 Westlands and other south-ofdelta agricultural water service contractors received a 25 percent allocation. This year, our allocation is zero. As a consequence, we anticipate as much as 300,000 acres in Westlands, half of the ground, will be fallowed. Farmers are removing permanent crops, including vineyards and almonds, simply because they do not have enough water to maintain those crops. We estimate that San Joaquin Valley–wide, as much as 800,000 acres of land will be fallowed.

The economic impact of reduced farming activities will be felt valley-wide. One-third of the jobs in the San Joaquin Valley are directly related to irrigated agriculture.

Because of reduced farming activities, virtually everyone in the valley will be economically impacted.

Irrigation Leader

The people who are least equipped to deal with the adverse economic impacts—people living in the disadvantaged communities on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley—will be most dramatically impacted.

In 2009, when we had a 10 percent allocation, we saw communities with unemployment rates in excess of 40 percent and people standing in food lines. The impact of this drought on those disadvantaged communities is going to be worse this year.

I have seen estimates that as many as 20,000 could lose their jobs as a result of reduced water supplies this year. In recent testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources, the mayor of Huron related comments of her granddaughter’s friends who wondered where their food was going to come from. It is a real tragedy.

Kris Polly: What other actions are Westlands farmers taking to adjust to the lack of water?

Tom Birmingham: The most dramatic action is increased reliance on groundwater resources. Farmers in Westlands are drilling wells at rates that we have not seen before. Last year, 2013, farmers in Westlands extracted approximately 598,000 acre-feet of groundwater. This year, we are fearful that farmers will extract even more groundwater. The safe yield of the groundwater basin underlying Westlands is approximately 175,000 acre-feet, and as I noted earlier, farmers have to rely on groundwater even in average water years because of regulations affecting operations of the CVP. These levels of reliance on groundwater resources are not sustainable.

The farmers in Westlands have historically undertaken water conservation activities. As an example, 80 percent of the crops grown in Westlands are watered with drip irrigation systems. The opportunities to reduce water use

through conservation in Westlands are very limited. At this point, the alternative to taking surface water is using groundwater. And there are impacts on crops and yields resulting from the use of groundwater—the groundwater is of a poorer quality than the surface water provided by the CVP. In addition, farmers in Westlands are looking for every opportunity to transfer water into the district. We are seeing unsustainable transfer prices. There is anecdotal information about people paying $2,300 an acre-foot for transfer water supplies. We are optimistic that this year, Westlands will be able to acquire 100,000–125,000 acrefeet of water through transfers to deliver to our growers.

We estimate that the cost of that water to the growers, out of the meter, will be approximately $900 per acre-foot. In a year in which we receive adequate water from the CVP, the out-of-the-meter cost of that water is $120 per acrefoot.

Kris Polly: Where will those transfers come from?

Tom Birmingham: This year, we are acquiring water from entities north of the [Sacramento–San Joaquin] Delta—potentially the Yuba County Water Agency, Placer County Water Agency, and the growers in the Sacramento Valley that have settlement contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. We are thankful that those agencies have water available that they can transfer to us, but the cost of those transfers is ultimately not sustainable for farmers.

Growers will predominantly use the acquired water to keep permanent crops alive. The economic loss within Westlands will be in excess of $1 billion this year. The economic impacts on the region will be a multiple of that number.

Aerial photo of the people and vehicles involved in agriculture irrigated by Westlands Water District. Photo courtesy of Megan Wade.

5

Forced to make tough business decisions by the withering drought, farmers have been forced to remove entire almond groves.

Kris Polly: And will ultimately impact the price of food.

Tom Birmingham: I’ve seen press reports talking about the impact of the California drought on the price of food across the nation. I’m sure you have seen over the course of the last few weeks that there has been a dramatic increase in the price of lettuce. Historically, Westlands has been a significant portion of the nation’s lettuce crop. The fact that farmers in Westlands are not growing lettuce is reflected in the price that people are currently paying for a head of lettuce at the supermarket.

Kris Polly: Given these challenging circumstances, what is the best way to move forward?

Tom Birmingham: I think there are a number of things that have to be done. First, we need to use water resources and existing water supply infrastructure as efficiently as possible.

There have been years in which the Bureau of Reclamation has released water from storage in upstream reservoirs in order to satisfy flood control criteria, while at the same time, it is unable to meet the needs of farmers south of the delta simply because it cannot convey water from north of the delta to south of the delta. That is a direct result of the regulations I described earlier. So we need to reexamine those regulations to determine whether they are serving their intended purpose.

Farmers in the CVP service area are held to very high standards of efficiency. It is my view that all uses of water— municipal, industrial, agricultural, environmental—should be held to the same standards of efficiency. If an environmental use of water is not serving a beneficial purpose, then that use of water should be reevaluated and modified if necessary.

Millions of acre-feet of water are dedicated to fishery resources on an annual basis, but the fisheries continue to decline. If reductions of pumping at the CVP Delta pumping plant to prevent entrainment of fish are not having population-level 6

benefits for the species, those pumping reductions should be reevaluated and modified.

In addition, it is Westlands’ view that Congress needs to provide direction on how the Endangered Species Act is going to be applied to the operations of the CVP and the California State Water Project.

There are currently bills that are pending in Congress that would provide that direction.

In the long term, we need to invest in new water supply infrastructure, including new facilities to convey water from where it exists north of the delta to where the demand exists south of the delta. There are ongoing activities to develop that infrastructure.

Kris Polly: Do you think that the current drought conditions have made legislators and stakeholders more amenable to development of water storage projects?

Tom Birmingham: Nothing turns the attention of the public to water supply like a drought. The drought in California has generated a greater interest in identifying infrastructure projects that can be implemented to avoid the types of impacts we are seeing this year.

This is not the first time we have faced this situation. In 1977, which was the driest year on record since the operations of the CVP began, there were many actions to address the impacts of that drought.

At the time, there was a push by agencies, like the Department of Water Resources, to learn from the experience and to avoid future adverse impacts from drought. Unfortunately, very little was done.

However, I’m encouraged that people like Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and members of the House of Representatives are saying Irrigation Leader

Dead trees and fallowed lands.

that we must invest in the water supply infrastructure if we are going to sustain the economy of the state of California.

Kris Polly: What role, if any, can the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) play in addressing drought in the long term?

Tom Birmingham: The BDCP is a comprehensive program intended to address many, if not all, of the stressors that limit the abundance of species in the delta.

That includes the impacts of the operations of the CVP and the state water project on species in the delta; it also includes the impact of the loss of habitat, the impact that habitat has on food supplies, the impact of exotic species on native species, the impact of in-delta diversions, and the impact of the discharge of pollutants into the delta.

The BDCP consists of 22 different conservation measures that are intended to reverse the decline of the aquatic species of the delta.

One of those conservation measures is the construction of new isolated conveyance facilities that would enable the CVP and the state water project to operate a dual conveyance system. The operation of those isolated conveyance facilities would reverse many of the water supply losses that we have suffered over the last two decades. For example, during the period from December 2012 to the end of February 2013, the CVP and the state water project lost in excess of 812,000 acre-feet of water as a result of the restrictions imposed under the Endangered Species Act on the operations of the projects’ pumping plants in the southern delta. Had the isolated conveyance facilities been in place during that period, we would not have lost that water. It is our view that the BDCP is essential to restoring water supplies to agencies that rely on the supplies of the CVP and state water project.

Irrigation Leader

Of greater importance is the holistic approach that is being proposed by the BDCP. To date, the entire focus of conserving species has been limiting the operations of the CVP and the state water project. It is generally recognized that there are many factors in addition to the operations of those two projects that limit the abundance of species.

Unless we begin to address those other limiting factors, we have no hope of recovering the species. The Public Policy Institute of California issued a report a number of years ago that said that even if the operations of both projects were completely shut down, it was still likely that the Delta smelt would go extinct because of all of the other factors that limit the abundance of that species. The BDCP was developed to address all of the factors limiting the abundance of the species.

Kris Polly: Do you think stakeholders were sufficiently represented and included in the BDCP process?

Tom Birmingham: The entities and interests that participated in the development of the BDCP were broad—urban agencies, agricultural agencies, fishery agencies, and nongovernmental conservation organizations.

There are other entities that feel that they were excluded from the BDCP process. I understand their anxiety, but the development of the BDCP was one of the most open, public processes that I have ever seen. As an example, as administrative drafts of the plan were completed, those drafts were made available to the public for review. Every time a document was prepared, regardless of the status of the document, it was made available for public review.

Everyone has an opportunity to participate and comment on the plan. Not everybody is going to be satisfied with the plan—I don’t know if Westlands Water District is going to be satisfied with the plan—but everyone has had an opportunity to provide input.

7

Kris Polly: Are there any other projects, programs, or pieces of legislation in the pipeline that can get water storage development off the ground?

Tom Birmingham: One of the major issues under discussion in California is a water bond. In 2009, the state legislature passed a bond that would have provided in excess of $11 billion for water supply infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. It was originally intended to be placed on the 2010 ballot, but it has been postponed several times. The bond is again being reviewed by the legislature, and I anticipate there will be a bond on the ballot; if not this year, then in the immediate future.

It will likely include money for the development of new surface and groundwater storage, as well as regional water supply programs and ecosystem restoration. There are a number of surface storage projects that have been proposed—Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flat on the upper San Joaquin River, raising Shasta Dam, expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County—which would benefit the people of California through increased water supply and improved flexibility in system operations.

Kris Polly: As a district manager, how has the drought impacted your day-to-day responsibilities?

Tom Birmingham: It has been challenging. I have to say that one of the most difficult things I’ve done in the last few months is develop a budget for the district in anticipation of having no water. The revenue used to operate Westlands is generated through water tolls and land-based charges or assessments. With no water to sell, it makes it very difficult. Over the course of the last five or six years, because of chronic water supply shortages, we made every effort to reduce our budget. Coming into this year with no water, we looked at the budget, and if an expenditure was not absolutely necessary, it was eliminated. But sometimes making a cut can be penny wise and pound foolish. It was difficult balancing act trying to decide where we could cut.

Over the course of the last few months, we have been going from one crisis to another. As an example, in January, we had to address whether Reclamation was going to limit Westlands’ ability to reschedule water from 2013 into 2014. As a means of insuring against reduced water supplies, Westlands and its farmers have developed the practice of conserving CVP water so it can be rescheduled from one water year to the next. This is generally accomplished by buying transfer water to use in the place of the current year’s allocation.

By January 2014, farmers in Westlands had invested nearly $120 million to purchase water supplies so they could save their 2013 water supply for use in 2014. At 8

the beginning of this year, Reclamation announced that it was evaluating the potential need to restrict our use of that water. In other words, Reclamation was evaluating the need to take back water allocated in 2013—that created an immediate crisis for us. Ultimately, Reclamation determined that it would honor its prior commitment to allow the district to reschedule water, but it created some anxiety.

We have been looking for every opportunity to acquire and move water. . . . Every time it rained this winter, multiple state and federal agencies engaged in discussion about how much water could be pumped and under what circumstances. I was involved in most of those discussions, which often were very tense. To their credit, the fishery agencies showed tremendous flexibility this year. However, it has not affected our zero percent allocation. This has been the cause of many, many sleepless nights.

Kris Polly: What advice do you have for other managers in the West who might grappling with reduced allocations and drought?

Tom Birmingham: Be proactive. There is a natural tendency to hunker down and fight for every drop of water that you think you are entitled to. But the cooperation we have seen both this year and in 2010 from fishery agencies was the result of California water managers being proactive and cooperative.

Be as cooperative as possible. There is this perception that urban and agricultural agencies in California are often in great conflict. But I have to say that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) has undertaken a number of actions to help farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. MWD has offered to forbear opportunities to pursue transfer water so that Westlands and other districts in the San Joaquin could pursue those transfers.

We have done exchanges with MWD as well. Without the cooperation of agencies like MWD, our situation would be a lot worse than it is.

I would like to highlight one more point. The public generally does not realize the impact of reduced water supplies on people: someone who is working reduced hours in a grocery store in Tranquility, a small town on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley; a farmworker who is unable to harvest crops because land has been fallowed; or a tractor salesman whose customer has decided not to purchase new equipment. In Fresno County, schools have closed because attendance has dropped so dramatically as families supported by farmworkers have moved on from fallowed fields to find work elsewhere. Communities are literally drying up. The human impacts of reduced water supplies are widespread and tragic.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

More available water, when it's needed most

Modernized irrigation supply systems offer a tremendous opportunity to improve agricultural surface water supplies

ADVERTISEMENT

Rubicon’s Network Control increases the versatility of canal operations to make more water available for crop production By providing canal operators with automated delivery tools, an irrigation district can more precisely control the delivery of water from the supply reservoir through to each farmer’s turnout.

Water deliveries can be matched to farmers’ requirements reducing over-supply and reserving more water in storage for use later in the growing season.

At the same time, water levels at the turnouts remain constant throughout the irrigation season, improving service levels to farmers.

Rubicon’s Network Control is a unique combination of precise flow controllers, integrated telemetry and software that matches supply to demand to allow water resources to be used longer through the growing season.

Precise on-farm irrigation systems are further enhanced by a responsive automated canal system There are significant opportunities for efficiency improvements throughout the whole water supply chain.

Farmers are adopting new technologies such as soil moisture sensors to set precise crop irrigation schedules. Combined with precise irrigation systems, these investments are increasing crop production per acre-foot applied.

The performance of precision on-farm watering systems can be further enhanced when coupled with a responsive automated canal system that maintains operating levels and flow rates as required.

Network Control is a paradigm shift from supplydriven manual system operations to a highly responsive demand-driven automated system that precisely matches crop needs.

ADVERTISEMENT

Modernized supply systems, which match supplied water to crop needs, present one of the biggest opportunities to increase water availability

•

Modernized gravity canals provide an optimal combination of total system cost and efficiency

•

Rubicon’s Network Control delivers efficiencies approaching 90% with near on-demand service equivalent to pipelines

• •

Increased water availability resulting from Network Control

Storage outflows

•

Canal modernization enables the best use of storage and canal infrastructure Typical costs of water made available for further crop production by Network Control are less than $50 per acre-foot per year when amortized over a 30 year asset life

•

Modernized gravity canals do not require energy to transport water, and are not exposed to rising energy cost risks

•

Network Control has recovered in excess of 182,250 acre feet per year in Victoria’s GoulburnMurray Water district, in a system which manages flows in 1,875 miles of open canals servicing 14,000 irrigators*

Water recovered

by Network Control

Off-farm distribution losses

Additional available water

Existing farm supply

Growing season starts

Storages depleted

Growing season ends

Canal flows are precisely matched to water demand through the canal delivery system, eliminating spills and creating additional productive capacity

Typical flow and level characteristics at all canal check structures

* Victorian Legislative Council, Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment

At the same time, water levels remain constant throughout the irrigation season, improving service levels to farmers

About Rubicon Water

Yves Remedios

Rubicon Water delivers advanced technology that optimizes gravity-fed irrigation, providing unprecedented levels of operational efficiency and control, increasing water availability and improving farmers’ lives.

To find out more about Network Control go to www.rubiconwater.com or contact your local Rubicon engineer.

Northern CO, WY, MT, ND, SD Zach Thode P 970.744.1444 E zach.thode@rubiconwater.com Central and Northern CA, UT, NV Darrel Evensen, PE P 209.480.7334 E darrel.evensen@rubiconwater.com

USDA

Southern CA, AZ Murray McCaig P 303.881.9093 E murray.mccaig@rubiconwater.com All other areas Remy Halm, PE P 970.817.0235 E remy.halm@rubiconwater.com California Contractor’s License Number 984209

Time

The Bottom Line: The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders

By Leslie James

T

he Endangered Species Act (ESA) is arguably the most powerful environmental law ever enacted.

Since its passage in 1973, it has had far-reaching impacts on power production from federally owned multiple-purpose projects, such as the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). Operational changes resulting from efforts to address ESA issues impact not only power production but repayment of the federal investment in the project. While differing approaches and programs have been established in an attempt to address ESA issues at Glen Canyon Dam, operations have proved to be significant and costly.

Background: Colorado River Storage Project

In 1956, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage Project Act to provide storage facilities for the Upper Basin states so that they could meet Colorado River Compact needs. Operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the CRSP consists of multipurpose dams that release water to meet Colorado River Compact, municipal and industrial (M&I), and irrigation requirements. As the water is released, electric power and energy are produced to help pay for the projects. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets and transmits that electricity to preference power entities pursuant to federal law.

Costs associated with the projects are divided into reimbursable costs and nonreimbursable costs.

Reimbursable costs are associated with power and water use—M&I water users pay for the costs associated with their use, irrigation users pay up to their ability to pay, and power users pay for all of the power facilities plus the irrigation features beyond the ability of the irrigators to pay. The federal government pays all nonreimbursable costs, which include environmental, recreation, and floodcontrol costs.

CRSP power features span six states and include five dams and associated generators, substations, and transmission lines. Two of its most notable features are Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam. Glen Canyon Dam is located near Page, Arizona, and is by far the largest of the CRSP projects. Glen Canyon power features include eight generators for a total of about 1,300 megawatts (MW), which is more than 70 percent

12

Glen Canyon Dam.

of total CRSP generation. Flaming Gorge Dam is on the Green River, a major tributary of the Colorado River, and has three units producing about 132 MW of generation.

ESA Impacts on Glen Canyon Dam Operations

The Glen Canyon Dam power plant generates power for municipal, industrial, irrigation pumping, and other uses. The long history of how the ESA has affected Glen Canyon’s operations and power generation is fraught with high costs and operational uncertainty.

In 1978, Reclamation began upgrading those eight units at Glen Canyon Dam. With completion in 1984, generation was increased from about 1,000 MW to 1,300 MW. Full utilization of unit upgrades required maximum release of Glen Canyon to be increased from 31,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) to about 33,200 cfs. This increase raised concerns with downstream users. After discussion with stakeholders, the secretary of the interior initiated the first phase of the Glen Canyon environmental studies.

From 1982 to 1987, Reclamation undertook phase 1. These studies analyzed the impacts of raising the maximum releases on downstream resources, including impacts on the endangered humpback chub. Phase 1 did not fully explore the power and water economics of the Glen Canyon Dam, and it utilized some incorrect Irrigation Leader

Abundance (1000s)

Abundance (1000s)

Abundance (1000s)

assumptions as to the impacts on downstream 14 resources.

12 10 In response to these shortcomings, the 8 secretary directed that studies address economic 6 impacts, particularly as they related to power, and 4 2 incorporate additional data to substantiate some 0 of the conclusions in the phase 1 report. The secretary initiated phase 2 in 1989, including the start of an environmental impact statement (EIS) 6 on the operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. The EIS 5 was completed, and the record of decision was signed in 4 3 October 1996.

The result was far reaching: Glen Canyon operations 2 1 were changed to reflect a revised flow regime, and 0 approximately one-third of the generating capacity was lost. CRSP power revenues funded the EIS at a cost of 20 $104 million. An adaptive management program now addresses the operations of the Glen Canyon Dam with 15 recommendations from a federal advisory committee, the 10 Adaptive Management Work Group, to the secretary of 5 the U.S Department of the Interior.

0 In April 2000, in response to hydrologic conditions and pursuant to a 1994 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biological opinion, Reclamation undertook a low, steady flow summer experiment to learn more about how conditions affect the endangered humpback chub.

The experiment included high spike flows in May and September, with low flat flows (8,000 cfs) all summer.

The low flows had a severe impact on power generation, requiring WAPA to purchase replacement power on the open market to meet contractual obligations to CRSP customers. According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Service report, the cost of this replacement power was $26.4 million. The cost of the experiment was more than $3 million, also funded by CRSP power revenues.

Subsequent experimentation with fall steady flows has indicated that these steady flows, which are so detrimental to power production, are not necessarily beneficial to or required by the humpback chub to improve (see accompanying chart). In fact, under the current operational regime, the Grand Canyon population of the humpback chub has continued to improve. (Charles B. Yackulic, Michael D. Yard, Josh Korman, and David R. Haverbeke, “A Quantitative Life History of Endangered Humpback Chub That Spawn in the Little Colorado River: Variation in Movement, Growth, and Survival,” Ecology and Evolution, February 28, 2014.)

Litigation History

In the early 2000s, the Grand Canyon Trust sued the United States in federal district court, alleging that the humpback chub recovery goals were insufficient and asking the court to require FWS to revise its goals. The court

Irrigation Leader

A.) Size class 1 in Colorado River study site for July (J), August (A), September (S) and October (O) S

S

O

J

A A

S

O

A J

2009

S

O

J

2010

2011

2012

B.) October 2011 estimates for size classes 2 - 5 in LCR and Colorado River study sites

ruled, requiring FWS to update the goals as to schedule 3 and cost estimates.

5 2 In February4 2006, the Center for2 Biological Diversity 3 5 and other organizations sued the United States,4 asking the federal court to interpret the Grand Canyon Protection site Colorado River study site Act andLCR tostudy require Reclamation to reconsult with FWS on a new biological opinion. In August 2006, the United C.) Total adult abundance for September of each year States settled with the plaintiffs, precipitating the start of additional environmental documentation.

In December 2008, the Grand Canyon Trust again sued the United States, alleging, among other things, that Reclamation’s current operation of the dam jeopardizes and takes the endangered humpback chub and 2012 adversely 2009 2010 2011 modifies its critical habitat. The district court ruled against the trust on all counts. The trust appealed, and in August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District ruled in favor of the United States on all claims.

The Costs of Compliance

Based on information provided by WAPA, through 2001, the direct costs of CRSP endangered species compliance totaled more than $394 million. In terms of power operational impacts, a 2010 study prepared

by Argonne National Labs indicates that, since implementation of the 1996 record of decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, the cost of reoperation averages $50 million per year. Beyond the costs borne by CRSP ratepayers, ESA implementation places at risk the capability of the CRSP to satisfy the growing demands for water and power in the Colorado River Basin.

Leslie James is the executive director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), a nonprofit organization representing consumerowned electric systems that purchase the federal hydropower and resources of the CRSP. CREDA is a member of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group and the Upper Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program. You can reach Leslie at (480) 477-8646 or creda@creda.org.

13

Finding a Win-Win Solution for Farmers and Fish: Constructing a Fish Bypass on the Lower Yellowstone

By Mike Murphy

T

he Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project (LYIP) serves approximately 55,000 acres, 300 farm and ranch families, and 5 communities in east-central Montana and western North Dakota. The Intake Diversion Dam spans the Yellowstone River downstream of Glendive, Montana, and diverts water from the Yellowstone into LYIP’s main canal, which parallels the river to its confluence with the Missouri River. Constructed by the Reclamation Service pursuant to the 1902 Newlands Act, the project is operated by the LYIP Joint Board of Control.

The Intake Diversion Dam is a 107‑year‑old rock and wooden structure that functions as a weir to move water into the headworks of the LYIP canal. Since its construction, LYIP has been manually adding rock via trolley to the diversion every two or three years to raise the head of the water and protect the structure from ice flows.

The “rocking” process has enabled LYIP to reliably deliver water to its water users for more than 100 years; however, fisheries biologists have expressed concern that the process has posed problems for fish passage. In partnership with numerous stakeholders, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have devised a win-win approach

for a solution to the issue that will provide reliable water for irrigators and a fish-friendly passage.

The Pallid Sturgeon The FWS listed the pallid sturgeon as an endangered species in 1990. One of the largest freshwater fish on the continent, the pallid sturgeon is a poor swimmer and sticks to major flows that are neither too turbulent nor too rough.

As noted earlier, fish biologists have concluded that the Intake Diversion impedes fish passage and believe it is particularly problematic for the pallid sturgeon.

Fishery experts have also concluded that the pallid sturgeon needs to migrate the 100 to 150 miles upriver to lay its eggs. They contend that the larvae can then drift down river for a certain number of days at the right elevation of water to develop the ability to swim in order to enhance their ability to survive. With the Intake Diversion Dam potentially impeding migration further upstream,

Construction of wooden diversion dam in 1908.

Past and present headgates at Intake Diversion Dam. 14

Irrigation Leader

pallid eggs lie low on the river and the larvae apparently end up floating down into Lake Sakakawea and Garrison Diversion Dam, where they potentially suffocate in the lake’s siltation. In addition, biologists observed that fish and larvae were being entrained into the irrigation canal.

A 2003 amended Missouri River Biological Opinion (BiOp) directed the Army Corps to assist Reclamation to provide passage for pallid sturgeon at Intake Diversion Dam. Subsequently, the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorized the Army Corps to use funding from the Missouri River Recovery and Mitigation Program to assist Reclamation with modifications. Army Corps and Reclamation proposed modifications in a 2010 final environmental assessment (EA), selecting the installation of fish screens and new main canal headworks to reduce entrainment of fish into the canal and construction of a modified rock ramp for fish passage.

Phase 1 Modifications In 2010, Reclamation started building a new concrete headworks structure on the side of the river. It also dug and widened a new half-mile of canal to accommodate fish screens so large that the velocity of water coming into the

canal would not suck the larvae and fish eggs against the screens and trap them (possibly killing them). Installation of the screens was completed in 2012.

The Army Corps specified very tight screening with a number of automated safety features to meet the requirements of the BiOp. However, as a result of the tight design the screens end up accumulating dirt and becoming partially plugged while waiting for a cleaning sweep, causing an average overall elevation friction loss of one-half foot to a full foot more than prior to the new screens. Ultimately, the screens reduce the amount of water entering the canal unless more rock is added to raise the water level at the headworks. Since installation of the screens, LYIP has been forced to replace a much more extensive amount of rock to maintain water levels that are sufficient to divert their authorized legal water right.

In July 2012, LYIP diverted water levels were running extremely low, which required it to replace rock. Instead of taking the average 7 to 8 days of rocking, it took 21 days to complete the rocking requirements. By August 2012, the river hit a 50-year low depth, in which the water runs between the boulders. As a result, there were multiple boulders sticking out of the water, creating a visible boulder

Proposed fish bypass channel at Intake Diversion Dam on the Lower Yellowstone River.

Irrigation Leader

15

fence that inhibited fish migration. This brought LYIP under the scrutiny of some local biologists, who reported LYIP to the Army Corps regulatory division. The biologists argued that under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, any obstruction or alteration in a “navigable water” requires authorization from the Army Corps.

As a result, LYIP is now working with the Army Corps to get a permit for work that Reclamation and LYIP had done every few years for more than 100 years. LYIP initially requested a permit that would cover the time period up to the construction of the fish bypass. However, FWS pushed for limiting the permit to only two years to avoid undertaking an extensive environmental assessment.

Consequently, LYIP reduced its request to two years. With the irrigation season now ongoing, the rocking necessary to move adequate water into the canal is on hold pending comments by FWS and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

The Status of Phase 2 Modifications The second part of the proposed dam modifications— the fish-friendly rock ramp—is under critical reevaluation.

The cost of the rock ramp project jumped substantially based on engineering estimates necessary to meet the stringent biological design requirements of the BiOp. The Army Corps; Reclamation; FWS; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; and LYIP all worked together to develop a preferred alternative draft supplement to the 2010 EA to weigh in on a fish bypass channel and the rock ramp.

Public meetings on the draft supplement brought out a great deal of support. Nine hundred people from Glendive and Sidney attended the meetings, with only two people expressing opposition. This high level of support reflects the economic reality that jobs and communities along the Lower Yellowstone revolve around irrigated agriculture.

Without LYIP’s current reliable delivery of water, the farms of sugar beets, malt barley, corn, hay, and livestock pasture would dry up. Sugar beet producers, for example, support the Sidney sugar factory, which contracts 30,000plus acres from around the project area from Miles City, Montana, to Trenton, North Dakota. In addition to the extensive sugar beet industry, LYIP provides reliable irrigation for Busch Ag malt barley as well as the USDA Ag Research and Montana State University Ag Research Labs.

LYIP recently commissioned an economic study to address what the loss of a reliable water supply means to the local economy. Study results indicate that a loss of a reliable water delivery system could result in over a billion dollars in economic losses in just three years. The local communities understand this reality and support this project for the future of both agriculture and recreation in the area.

16

Congress appropriated money for this project from the Missouri River Recovery and Mitigation Program in 2010 with a sunset date in September 2014. Due to delays, the Army Corps reverted the funding set aside because it felt there was no way to meet the September 2014 deadline.

The 2015 Presidential Budget has funding set aside for the project. However, the appropriation will require congressional approval to make it a reality.

The Takeaway LYIP, federal and state agencies, and other stakeholders are hoping that this project is a model of success for other future endangered species actions. Completion of the project will provide benefits to all fish species of the Lower Yellowstone River; to agriculture and local communities; as well as to boaters, recreationists, and fishing enthusiasts. This endangered species–related project proposal does not force a choice between the fish or the farmer. It is a win-win for both. Irrigators will have a fish-friendly concrete weir with a stable short rock ramp that will remove the need to pile rock across the river, reduce maintenance costs, and help ensure adequate flows. Ninety-five percent of the fish species in the Lower Yellowstone will be able to more readily migrate over the weir without impediment and with reduced turbulence.

Species less able to navigate the rock ramp and weir, such as the pallid sturgeon, can use the low gradient fish bypass to safely migrate up and down the river. This project represents a class example of bringing a number of agencies and stakeholders together to find common ground in support of agricultural producers, communities, and recreationists while helping an endangered species.

Finally, we need to encourage our congressmen and senators to ensure reauthorization of the funding for this mutually beneficial project as an example for future endangered species actions that will not overburden our agricultural producers. Let us hope that common-sense collaboration will prevail and help keep our American farmer from becoming an endangered species.

Mike Murphy has served as the executive director of the Montana Water Resources Association since 1993. Mike grew up on a small ranch in the Helena Valley and continues to work cattle to this very day. After attending Montana State University and obtaining a master's degree in economics, he spent 10 years working as administrator of the Agriculture Development Division in the Montana Department of Agriculture.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Wheeling Water: District Improvements and Species Conservation

By Rick Dieker

C

owiche Creek, its main stem and two tributaries, runs through Yakima–Tieton Irrigation District (YTID). The south fork and the main stem both have been developed for irrigation. YTID delivers water to 28,000 acres, some of which is adjacent to the creek. The creek users have natural flow rights dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Starting 10 years ago, YTID and local stakeholders initiated conversations about increasing instream flows into the creek to help improve endangered steelhead salmon habitat. Last month, the stakeholders gathered together to celebrate the completion of a wheeling project that benefits salmon habitat and water delivery infrastructure.

The wheeling project was really about balancing the needs of all stakeholders by agreeing on the right financial and legal mechanisms to install a new and more efficient water delivery infrastructure to serve Cowiche Creek

Water Users Association (CCWUA) farmers, protect fish, and not impact delivery to YTID water users. It brought together YTID, the CCWUA, the North Yakima Conservation District (NYCD), Trout Unlimited (TU), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). We forged a complex but mutually beneficial agreement with funding and programmatic support from the Yakama Nation and state and federal agencies to support different aspects of the project. Getting the components of the project in place was not easy. We had to get over environmental, legal, and political hurdles to get it done.

Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration awarded TU grant funds to purchase 1,580 acre-feet of water rights from CCWUA irrigators. In turn, TU purchased those rights and moved them into Ecology’s water trust program for instream flows. At the same time, Ecology issued new water rights, with original priority dates, to CCWUA. NYCD helped fund two new turnouts off the YTID system and installed several thousand new feet of pipes to serve CCWUA irrigators with the help of funds from the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board. It also removed two creek diversions, providing more instream flows to improve fish habitat. The end result: CCWUA water is run from YTID’s diversion dam through its main canal and piped system to serve 400 acres for CCWUA irrigators. All told, the project cost $1.8 million.

There are multiple benefits to the district. By joining a fish recovery project, funding doors that were once closed can open up for us. It shows that YTID will cooperate and work with stakeholders to build partnerships to find positive benefits for everybody. Ultimately, YTID needs to replace its 100-year-old main canal, and as part of the project agreement, we received a lump-sum payment that can be used for future planning. We recently completed an alternatives study to replace the main canal and increase capacity for additional water exchange projects funded by Reclamation, salmon recovery funding, and YTID. This also fits into the elements of the bigger Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.

Mike Tobin (North Yakima Conservation District) and Jim Lust (president of Cowiche Creek Water Users Association) turning on the water to the new piped system.

18

Irrigation Leader

Getting to Yes

It took several years for the YTID board to get comfortable with the wheeling project. In fact, at one point in 2010, our board voted to not move forward with the project—it did not close the door completely, but it closed the door to an agreement for a period of time. The first thing you look at for these kinds of projects is what is in the best long-term interest of the district. You do your research early on, and once you have determined that the project is in the best interest of the district, you have to be tenacious and stay with the program. In retrospect, one thing I would have done differently is to include a couple of board members in early meetings with the conservation district. That way, they could have seen the full picture themselves, instead of through me, and related what they learned to the rest of the board.

The board of directors has to balance the needs of the district for the short term and long term. My role was not only be involved on behalf of the district but also to provide the board with good information so it could make an informed decision. The YTID board ultimately agreed to move forward with the project. By staying at the table with stakeholders, elected officials, regulators, and others, we were able to work out contentious issues. A few of the other key players were TU’s Lisa Pelly; Mike Tobin of the NYCD; Tim McCoy of Reclamation’s local office; and David Child, fish biologist for the Yakima Basin Joint Board. Reclamation’s Northwest Regional Director Lori Lee was also involved in getting this project done. We were able to get over institutional hurdles to complete the

necessary agreements: a water service agreement among YTID, CCWUA, and NYCD; and a Warren Act contract agreement (the wheeling agreement) among Reclamation, YTID, and CCWUA.

Commemorating the Effort

On a beautiful 70-degree day this April 10, the project partners held a celebration event to commemorate the wheeling project and turn on project water.

Representatives from YTID, TU, NYCD, Reclamation, the state legislature, and Congressman Hastings’s office came out to show support. We talked about the project and thanked everyone for their input. The commemoration was a real testament to the improvement of relationships among the various stakeholders in the Yakima Basin as a result of this project. Rather than sitting around in a courtroom with our attorneys, we sat down in a cooperative manner to work together.

Rick Dieker has worked for the Yakima–Tieton Irrigation District for 34 years. A 1979 graduate of Oregon State University, he has spent his entire career with YTID, starting out as a ditch rider, then moving on to be an engineering tech, the assistant manager, and, finally, general manager in 1997. You can reach Rick at (509) 678-4101 or Rickdieker@yvn.com.

Rick Dieker, general manager of the Yakima–Tieton Irrigation District, reflecting on the new water turnout and project.

Irrigation Leader

19

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Irrigation Project Grows Crops, Recreation

By Kacie Thrift

O

nce, the region stretching north from the Canadian border and south nearly to the Oregon state line lacked water and life. As the Grand Coulee Dam was built and the Columbia Basin Project created, the area grew not just crops, but it grew in population, animals, and recreation.

Now, over 3 million visitors a year bring in $50 million to the once-desolate basin to fish, boat, camp, hike, horseback ride, hunt, rock hound, scuba dive, and sunbathe in this campsite owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Nearly 500,000 acres are available for fish, wildlife, and public recreational use. Many of the areas offer, with permitting, boating, fishing, and hunting, with facilities like restrooms, picnic areas, and campgrounds. Of the total, Reclamation turned over nearly 270,000 acres of both land and water to local agencies for a variety of recreation areas; an additional 31,000 acres is owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 33,500 acres by the Washington State Department of Game, and 54,000 acres by the U.S. Department of Energy. Reclamation opens another 100,000 acres for hunting.

Recreational fishing is a real draw in the Potholes Reservoir, according to Chad Jackson, district fish biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

He said Potholes is one of the most popular fishing destinations in the state. Jackson’s agency manages the reservoir as a mixed-species water with a warm-water fish emphasis. There are around 20 fish species in the reservoir, and half are targeted by recreational anglers.

These anglers fished an estimated 68,680 hours in Potholes Reservoir from 2012 to 2013, which equals about 55 angler trips each day. Potholes Reservoir also hosts nearly two dozen fishing tournaments every year, and many regional and national fishing programs have been filmed there.

Five major reservoirs (Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, Banks Lake, Billy Clapp Lake, Potholes Reservoir, and Scooteney Reservoir) and thousands of miles of waterways have made water commonplace in the Columbia Basin, along with numerous lakes and marshes developed from both seepage and irrigated farming. Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake is the largest body of water in the project. Lake Roosevelt is 150 miles long, travels up to the Canadian border, and is partially a National Recreational Area. The lake offers many campgrounds plus swimming beaches, boat ramps and docks, house boat and fishing rentals, fuel, and food. There are 1,000 campsites, 24 boat launches, 9 picnic areas, and 2 interpretive facilities.

22

Banks Lake, a major attraction in the basin, is the starting point for the project’s irrigation water delivery system but also offers fishing, boating, and camping.

Almost a quarter of the developed campsites and boat launches in the project area are at Banks Lake. There are 661 campsites, 12 boat launches, and 3 picnic areas.

In addition, the Banks Lake Reservoir supports one of the finest fisheries in the state. A telephone survey of 831 Columbia Basin residents showed that 68 percent participated in water-based recreation during the previous 12 months.

Boating is one of the most common activities in the two large reservoirs (Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt). In May and September, the majority of boaters are anglers, but during late summer months, July and August, the majority are house and power boaters.

State parks have been developed at Billy Clapp Lake and the Potholes Reservoir. Franklin County has developed a park on Scooteney Reservoir as well.

Grand Coulee Dam brings thousands of visitors from around the world each year to tour the power plants and pumps that push irrigation throughout the basin.

Recreation brings considerable economic value to the project, with fishing in Potholes Reservoir worth nearly $3 million in 2012 and 2013.

Development of the project has also brought a large increase in both game and nongame wildlife in the area, with seep lakes and marshes being home to many. In 1956, the Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the 28,000‑acre Columbia National Wildlife Refuge, where more than 100,000 ducks and geese refuge for wintering, nesting, feeding, and resting.

Each year, more than 150 types of songbirds, shore birds, hawks, waterfowl, and others are sighted in the basin area, bringing thousands of people to study and observe.

Initially created for irrigation, the Columbia Basin Project is the economic engine that not only supplies central Washington and the state with life-giving water but also provides the unintended benefit of millions of dollars in recreational income.

Kacie Thrift writes about issues affecting the Columbia Basin Project.

Most recently, she was a reporter and assistant editor for two newspapers in north-central Washington. She grew up in Entiat, Washington, and is a graduate with honors from Whitworth University with a bachelor of arts in journalism and mass communications.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

s k c i K r u o y Get 6 6 e t u o R n o

E T A D E SAVE TH National Water Resources Association

WesteRN WAteR semiNAR Join us in the Cool Country of Flagstaff, Arizona

July 28–30,2014

Manager Profile

David Campbell

C

ollaboration in the context of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be a rare thing. But models do exist; the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program is one such model. As the director of the program for the last nine years, David Campbell has employed his ESA expertise to lead the effort to reconcile species recovery with water resources development in the San Juan River Basin.

The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program was established in 1992 via a cooperative agreement among the governors of Colorado and New Mexico; the secretary of the interior; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The program seeks to protect and recover populations of two endangered fish species, the Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker, and proceed with water development in the basin. The end goal is to achieve delisting of the fish and provide ESA compliance for water development and management activities for federal, tribal, and nonfederal water users.

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower revenues provide base funding for the program. Congress has extended authorization to expend up to $6Â million per year of CRSP power revenues for both the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program until 2019. In addition to CRSP power customers, the states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and water users contribute to San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program operations.

Irrigation Leader’s senior writer, John Crotty, spoke with David about the program, its challenges and successes, and finding ways to reconcile competing interests in limited water resources.

John Crotty: Please describe the structure of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and your duties as program director.

David Campbell: I manage an FWS-staffed office for the program. We handle the budget, the longrange planning for the program, and the annual work plans. Project proponents send us their scopes of work; we vet them and get the approval of the biology and coordination committees. The biology committee is our technical arm, leading the research side of things, and the coordination committee functions much like a board of directors. Both committees have a member representing the signatories to the program cooperative agreement.

24

My position is much like an executive director’s position with respect to his or her board of directors.

With respect to water projects, I wear two hats: one for the program and one for FWS. I advise program participants as to what is going on during the development of the project, and I advise the project people as to what they need to do to make the project compatible with our goals for recovery of the species.

While the governors were the actual signatories to the program, they appointed a person to sit on the coordinating committee on their behalf. In addition to representatives of the states and the tribes, the board comprises representatives of FWS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, water development interests (led by Mr. Tom Pitts), and The Nature Conservancy as the conservation interest.

John Crotty: How do you navigate such a diverse board?

David Campbell: Coordinating Committee members have developed a high level of trust over the years. We all have the same goal in mind, which is recovery of the fish species while enabling successful water development in the basin. There are little glitches that come up from time to time, but nothing major anymore.

John Crotty: How did the program get started?

David Campbell: In 1988, water development interests, FWS, and the states got together to found the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. They identified that problems over species protection would arise and decided to work together where they could. The same interests that put together the Upper Colorado program were instrumental in the genesis of the San Juan program. People like Tom Irrigation Leader

Pitts were there from the beginning.

John Crotty: Describe how the process works when a water development project comes before the program.

David Campbell: There are two things that would happen. First, FWS would have to develop a biological opinion, and second, FWS would refer the participant back to the program for review of the proposed project.

For example, we just finished the Navajo–Gallup Water Supply Project as part of the Navajo Water Settlement Act. It took FWS about two years to get the entire ESA process done—all of the consultation and meetings necessary to move it forward. Our office then had to review the project from the program’s perspective to ensure sufficient recovery progress and compliance with flow recommendations. The process does not always travel in a direct line—it can be fairly convoluted—but it works well.

John Crotty: What have been some of the more significant challenges for the program?

David Campbell: The big challenge for the program is one species, the Colorado pikeminnow. It doesn’t reach reproductive maturity until it is 7 to 10 years old. Even though Congress authorized the program back in 1992, we really didn’t start to get any funding until 2000. This species was nearly extirpated from the system. At that point, we started collecting, hatching, and stocking a lot of fish in the system—it takes a long time to build an adult population of fish that can start reproducing. Our stock populations come from Dexter National Fish Hatchery in New Mexico.

We don’t have a lot of life history on the Colorado pikeminnow. We’ve been learning as we’ve gone along. So getting Congress to see that we are not just dragging our feet has been a challenge. On the other hand, with the razorback sucker, we put them in at two years of age, and they are adults in another year. So we are doing really well with getting a reproductive class of fish in the system.

John Crotty: With respect to the ESA, we see a lot of litigation; yet, this program is very collaborative. Can you describe how the program avoids the courtroom?

David Campbell: We are very fortunate that we’ve never been sued. I think a very big part of that is the way we go about ensuring ESA compliance for water development projects. The San Juan River was not overallocated when we started the program, so we have been able to be very judicious about the projects that move forward. We also make sure that projects can get their full allocation of state-granted water rights within the bounds of the Colorado River Compact. We are doing this without overdepleting the system by using the San Juan Irrigation Leader

Hydrology Model, which was developed by the program and Reclamation.

We are not in the same situation as, let’s say, the Middle Rio Grande River, which has been historically overallocated and has lacked adjudication. So they are in a much different situation than we are on the San Juan.

They’ve had a lot of lawsuits and a lot of problems keeping species in the system. When this program started, the mindset was to recover the species and not continually fight the ESA. It has worked out well for everyone involved.

John Crotty: One of the critiques of the ESA is that species recovery never actually occurs. Do you think that the goal of species recovery in the basin can be reached?

David Campbell: I think that with the razorback sucker in the San Juan River, we will reach our recovery goal. We have been very fortunate in addressing the threats and getting good spawn counts from that species.

The Colorado pikeminnow is a highly migratory species—I have high hopes for it, but the question is still out on whether we can recover it within the San Juan. One factor is the age at which it matures; it takes a lot more time to see success. Another is the range that we have for the species. We only have 186 miles between the Navajo Dam and Lake Powell, and this fish used to have full range of the entire Colorado system. It is an incredible species in that it can navigate hundreds of miles in a season. In the San Juan, there is not that much room for it to go.

While there aren’t any fish passages at the big dams, many of the diversions have been able to install them. They have been a very successful part of opening up the range of habitat within the basin. We haven’t seen it yet, but we expect to document pikeminnow leaving the San Juan and traveling up the Colorado River.

John Crotty: Can this type of program work on other river basins?

David Campbell: We do share program successes at different water conferences and meetings. Some rivers, like the Middle Rio Grande, want to do a recovery implementation program, but know that they are at a different starting point. Stakeholders along the Middle Rio Grande are in negotiations now to develop a recovery implementation program.

John Crotty: What advice would you have for somebody who wants to develop a water project in the San Juan River Basin?

David Campbell: Start early in the process and get involved. Come to our meetings. Learn about potential issues that may arise and work with us to find a way to alleviate those issues in the development of the project.

25

The Innovators

Manufacturing Infrastructure and Jobs: Northwest Pipe’s Saginaw Plant Expansion

26

T

he state of Texas is experiencing steady population and economic growth, driving the need for the delivery of more water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Regional water authorities are meeting those needs as only Texans can—on a large scale. With the Integrated Pipeline (IPL) Project, Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) and Dallas Water Utility (DWU) are constructing 149 miles of new water pipeline from east to north central Texas to meet the demands of growing cities like Dallas, Fort Worth, and surrounding cities within the Metroplex. That kind of large-scale infrastructure project brings more than just freshwater; it brings jobs and growth.

Northwest Pipe Company (NWP) is on the pulse of water infrastructure development in north Texas. In April 2014, the company was selected to provide 15.5 miles of 108‑inch diameter, coated steel pipe for a section of the IPL Project. Key to that selection was NWP’s ability to handle such large-scale manufacturing within the state of Texas in its expanded facility in Saginaw.

NWP began discussions of expanding the Saginaw facility back in 2010, when the IPL Project started to move into preliminary and detailed design. At that point, with joint supply agreement between TRWD and DWU imminent, NWP was not in a position to facilitate the manufacturing of 108‑inch pipe in Texas.

The company knew it had the current capacity to take care of the needs of west Texas, but realized that adding a new mill would increase efficiencies and enable it to meet the growing needs of the rest of the state. Overall, NWP decided it needed to make some changes in order to compete in that diameter range.

The Saginaw water transmission facility expansion included relocating an existing NWP mill from Pleasant Grove, Utah, to Saginaw. With that relocation came a new hydrostatic tester for pipe up to 126 inches in diameter. NWP also increased its handling capabilities for lining and coating large-diameter pipe, including new craneways, building expansion, and overall site improvements for additional storage. The expansion came in under budget and on time.

On November 1, 2013, NWP commemorated the opening of the expanded facilities with a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by honored guest Congresswoman Kay Granger, who represents Texas’s 12th Congressional District and the city of Saginaw. That day brought a lot of pride to

Congresswoman Kay Granger and Eric Stokes at Northwest Pipe's Saginaw plant.

Eric Stokes, NWP vice president of sales—East Region.

“It was an honor to have her at the plant. We truly appreciated her recognition of Northwest Pipe’s efforts and its commitment to the water needs of Texas and the surrounding states.”

As Congresswoman Granger highlighted at the commemoration, the expansion brought more manufacturing jobs to the Saginaw facility. There was a 25 percent growth in employment, and with the award of the first section of the IPL, NWP is starting to ramp up production personnel hiring.

Eric Stokes put the impacts of the plant expansion and the IPL Project into perspective. “When you talk about your congressional representative coming to your plant, recognizing American-made products, adding workforce, and keeping that ratepayer dollars for infrastructure projects in the state of Texas, it is a benefit for everyone involved. It is a win for everyone in the state, and we are just happy to be a part of it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

NEW 1tRIPr XD FOR HIGH-CAPACITY FARMING SOLUTIONS 3 Principles of Precision Tillage Ideal Seedbed Preparation Precision Nutrient Placement Optimal Root-Zone Conditioning Built for today’s ever-larger farms, Orthman’s new, drawn 1tRIPr XD offers the benefits of 1tRIPr precision tillage with the additional efficiency of fertilizer carrying capacity integrated in large-frame, drawn designs. The 1tRIPr XD is available in 8- to 18-row toolbar configurations with 6- or 9-ton dry fertilizer packages, a 1,000-gallon liquid fertilizer capacity and optional rear hitch for use in NH3 application. Options on the 1tRIPr XD include integrated implement steering and narrow transport.

To learn more, visit your local dealer, find us online at Orthman.com or call (308) 324-4654.

Water Law

Between a Lone Star and a Dry Place: Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

Compact NM Geographic NM

Compact TX

Geographic NM

Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir with compact delineation.

By Steve Hernandez

D

rought drives farmers to fallow their lands as crops wither away; it pushes districts to ration as supplies dry up, and it brings lawyers into the courtroom to litigate over rights to what water is left. Drought has devastated the states of New Mexico and Texas for the better part of 10 years. With surface supplies on the wane, farmers have taken to groundwater to get through the dry years. That groundwater pumping has become the subject of litigation between the two states.

The State of Texas has filed suit in the Supreme Court on behalf of the famers and municipalities serviced by the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EPCWID) against New Mexico.

The State argues that New Mexico is violating the purpose and intent of the 1939 Rio Grande Compact by allowing New Mexican farmers south of Elephant Butte Reservoir to pump groundwater hydrologically connected to the surface waters bound for Texas beneficiaries. New Mexico argues that the compact only obligates that it deliver water to Elephant Butte Reservoir.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) is situated between the Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Texas border and, for the reasons set forth below, is in a unique position to drive a solution to this conflict.

30

Historical Context

As with many western water disputes, the origins of this conflict date back to actions and agreements of the early 20th century. In 1905, the United States Congress enacted the Rio Grande Project Act, which established the Rio Grande Project to provide water to southern New Mexico and west Texas. The following year, the United States extended the service areas of the project to Texas and signed a treaty with Mexico to also use project facilities to store and deliver 60,000 acre-feet of water to Mexico.

Around the same time, farmers in New Mexico and Texas organized the Elephant Butte Water User’s Association (which later became EBID) and the El Paso Valley Water User’s Association (predecessor to EPCWID), respectively, to enter into contracts with the United States Reclamation Service (predecessor to the Bureau of Reclamation) for the construction of Elephant Butte Reservoir, diversion dams in the Rio Grande, and canals and laterals to furnish project water to members. Reclamation began construction of Elephant Butte Dam in 1908 and completed it eight years later.

In 1938, after a decade of negotiations, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado entered into the Rio Grande Compact to equitably apportion the waters of the Rio Grande Basin in order “to remove all causes of present and future controversy . . . with respect to the use of the waters of the Rio Grande.” With respect to “waters Irrigation Leader

of the Rio Grande,” the compact does not differentiate between groundwater and surface water. The compact obligates Colorado to deliver a specified quantity of water to the Colorado–New Mexico state line; in turn, it obligates New Mexico to deliver a specified quantity of water into Elephant Butte Reservoir. South of the Elephant Butte Reservoir, Reclamation allocates water between the project’s beneficiaries—EBID and EPCWID. Subsequently, Rio Grande project water has been allocated at a 57 to 43 split to EBID and EPCWID, respectively.

By 1980, the two districts had repaid Reclamation for the cost of construction of Elephant Butte Reservoir and the attendant distribution and drainage system. That meant that EBID and EPCWID could take over project operations. Debt repayment also precipitated development of contracts governing that takeover, requiring the districts and Reclamation to agree on an allocation scheme for project supply for the units in New Mexico and Texas.

Seeking Certainty Through Litigation

Buoyed by sufficient snowpack and water supplies in the following decades, EBID, EPCWID, and Reclamation did not settle on an allocation scheme as required by the takeover contract. That left a great deal of uncertainty with respect to water rights south of Elephant Butte Reservoir.

Starting in 1980, the City of El Paso filed applications with New Mexico to develop wells for groundwater pumping and piping that water to Texas. In 1986, EBID responded with a lawsuit to initiate water rights adjudication in state court to memorialize the sources of water, including groundwater, for the project right. After 10 years of legal wrangling over indispensible parties and proper venue, New Mexico refiled the adjudication, as New Mexico v. EBID, et al., 96-CV-888 (1996). The adjudication is ongoing.

In 1997, the United States (on behalf of Reclamation) filed a quiet title action in federal district court in New Mexico to determine its rights in the project. In response, EPCWID filed a counterclaim challenging Reclamation’s method of allocation, which it claimed did not account for groundwater pumping by New Mexican farmers. Ultimately, by 2001 mediation had failed, and the district court dismissed the quiet title suit and counterclaim. The U.S. district court, however, retained jurisdiction if the parties to the quiet title action did not believe their rights were adequately adjudicated in the ongoing state proceedings.

From 2003 through 2006, Reclamation employed an ad hoc method of allocation of project supply between the two districts. In 2007, EBID and EPCWID filed suit in their respective federal courts challenging Reclamation’s allocation. The Texas suit led to an operating agreement

Irrigation Leader

settlement, outlining the method of allocation of the Rio Grande Project supply between the two districts, which was agreed to by Reclamation.

The Operating Agreement and Its Aftermath

The operating agreement sets forth how Reclamation allocates project water and ensures that EPCWID gets the water it orders from Elephant Butte Reservoir. The agreement contains a provision whereby the operating manual, which implements the agreement, is annually reviewed and adjusted by engineers from the two districts and Reclamation. The agreement addressed the tricky issue of groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico by grandfathering in pumping from 1951 to 1978 and offsetting exceedances of those levels with deliveries from EBID’s project allocation. In addition, both districts were enabled to cooperatively order and control releases from the reservoirs for maximum conservation. Most importantly to EPCWID was the ability of both districts to carry over water in storage that it conserved from an initial allocation.

EBID, EPCWID, and the United States were satisfied with the agreement; New Mexico, however, was not. Three years after the agreement was placed into operation, the state attorney general filed suit, New Mexico v. United States, EBID, EPWCID#1, in New Mexico federal district court, to seek to invalidate the agreement.

New Mexico also claims that Reclamation is in violation of compact accounting to New Mexico, giving more water to Texas, which would include both districts. EBID and EPCWID have filed motions to dismiss the suit. This year, the court stayed the proceedings to await outcome of the petition at the Supreme Court. In this case, EBID has also counterclaimed against the United States for an early release allowed by Reclamation for Mexican water, which cost the districts 25,000 acre-feet in a drought year because the districts had not yet released water. The districts bear all losses for the Mexican water delivery, and EBID claims the compact was violated with the early release.

Meanwhile, over in the state water rights adjudication, by fall 2012 the state court granted New Mexico’s motion arguing that the United States had no claim to groundwater as a source of water for the project. Yet at the same time, the court recognized that from a release of 790,000 acre-feet of surface water from Elephant Butte Reservoir, 930,000 acre-feet of water is actually delivered to farmers. That leaves open the issue of the status and quantity of return flows and seepage captured in 457 miles of EBID drains. Most Reclamation projects in the West rely on return flow and seepage waters to be part of project supply.

The court left it up to the New Mexico state engineer 31

Receding water levels in Elephant Butte Reservoir have created rings on surrounding rock walls.

to hold an administrative hearing to determine the quantity of return flows as groundwater. The issue is that there will be no decree, which would be enforceable for this portion of project supply by Texas entities.

On March 13, 2014, the court adopted a schedule for resolving the priority date of the United States’ interests in the Rio Grande Project ending in a trial at the end of August 2015. A request to stay that portion of the adjudication in state court regarding project priority date has been filed by the Texas entities in light of the Supreme Court case.

The Texas Suit

In January 2013, shortly after New Mexico filed to invalidate the agreement, Texas filed a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court, suing New Mexico over alleged Rio Grande Compact violations. The Supreme Court accepted the lawsuit in January 2014, and the United States has successfully intervened, raising its own set of issues as a plaintiff intervenor against New Mexico. The United States asks the Court to order New Mexico to protect project supply from nonproject members.

Texas complains that, because of groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico, it does not receive its share of water apportioned by the compact and allocated by the project. Texas notes the issues with the adjudication court failing to protect seepage and return flows and the fact that without the agreement in place, there is no guarantee for EPCWID to receive its water. With the agreement threatened in New Mexico federal district court, Texas has now reverted to its preagreement position that all groundwater pumping after the 1939 compact and its depletions on project supply must be accounted for. This would now include EBID member pumping, which previously had been accounted for in the agreement.

The Position of Elephant Butte Irrigation District

EBID is in a unique position. The district resides within the bounds of New Mexico, but for the purposes of the compact, EBID is part of Texas. So the Texas compact commissioner represents EBID to protect its surface water, but the New Mexico state engineer has jurisdiction over

32

the groundwater pumping of its members. However, the Supreme Court action requests no relief for EBID, only the Texas district.

Moreover, much is at stake. Curtailment of groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico could jeopardize the area’s economic engine—agriculture.

The pecan, onion, and chili farms of Doña Ana County contribute to a farming sector that generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year and accounts for one-third of the local economy. Those farms would wither and die without access to groundwater reserves in times of drought.

The best-case scenario for EBID involves successful intervention in the Supreme Court case and convincing all the parties that the existing operating agreement is the best solution to the problem. EBID, EPCWID, and Reclamation are still behind the operating agreement.

However, if Texas’s argument carries the day, and the operating agreement is invalidated or not set back into place in an agreeable fashion, New Mexico will have to account for all groundwater depletions post compact.

That means New Mexico will have to adopt some form of administration that accomplished what the operating agreement did but without the unanimous agreement of EBID, EPCWID, and Reclamation.

New Mexico will have to look to other western states on how junior groundwater rights have been curtailed through offset or augmentation programs. A straight priority call to account for depletions would have a devastating effect on all sectors of the economy, because the only water that will be senior is the surface water of the project. Offsetting with project supply water will place a tremendous amount of pressure to retire EBID farmland.

Steve Hernandez is a Las Cruces– based attorney who lives in a pecan orchard on land originally part of a Spanish Land Grant.

He represents the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. You can reach Steve at (575) 526-2101.

Irrigation Leader

Who Reads Irrigation Leader?

Future irrigation leaders, like Pat and Sharon O’Toole’s three-year-old grandson, McCoy, read it!

Hard copies of Irrigation Leader are mailed to the nearly 650 irrigation district general managers and their respective boards of directors in the 17 western states; the Bureau of Reclamation; Congress; all western state legislators’ and governors’ offices; and a variety of western water-related organizations, engineering firms, and individuals. The magazine is supported by advertisements and does not have a subscription fee.

Since our debut issue in October 2010, our mailing list has more than tripled to over 10,000 individuals. An additional 1,000 readers receive e-mail notification when the magazine is posted to our website at www.WaterandPowerReport.com. Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year, with July/August and November/ December as combined publications.

If you are not receiving Irrigation Leader in the mail, please send your mailing address to Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com, and we will be happy to add you to our distribution list.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ALPS Canal Repair System allows the irrigation district’s own crew to apply the unique AquaLastic® LP polyurea crack sealer and/or surface coating to repair and protect canals, flumes and other concrete structures. It is also a valuable tool for stopping leaks and water loss.

Over 14 million feet of canals have been successfully repaired with AquaLastic® Made in the USA • Suitable for all USA climates

CALL: 509-467-8487

jill@fixcanal.com - www.fixcanal.com

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contracts and Western Water Law 21OO North Main Street Suite 1A P.O. Box 13108 Las Cruces, NM 88013

Effective, proven, rapid control of submersed aquatic weeds and algae in irrigation systems for over 50 years.

(575) 526-2101

For more information contact:

Wes Croxen, Western Aquatic Specialist 559.706.2460 wcroxen@alligare.com www.alligare.com 888.255.4427 is a trademark of Baker Hughes

Family Farm

LLIANCE The Family

Fax (575) 526-2506 Email:

slh@lclaw-nm.com

SM

Farm Alliance is a powerful advocate for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation

districts, and allied industries in seventeen Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.

As a 501(c)(6) tax exempt organization, our support comes exclusively from those who believe our mission is important enough to contribute. We believe the cause is important enough to ask for your support - Please join us by completing the web form at http://www.familyfarmalliance.org/ProspectiveContact.cfm.

For more information contact Dan Keppen by phone at (541) 892-6244, or by e-mail at dankeppen@charter.net

National Water Resources Association

2014 Western Water Seminar July 28–30, 2014 Little America Hotel ~ Flagstaff, Arizona Monday, July 28, 2014 9:00 am State Executives 10:00 am Policy Development Committee 1:00 pm NWRA Memorial Golf Tournament 6:00 pm Welcome Reception

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:30 am

9:00 am

10:30 am 10:45 am

12:00 pm

2:00 pm

3:30 pm 3:45 pm

6:30 pm

NWRA Headliner Breakfast Sponsored by the Municipal Caucus Speaker: Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, EPA (invited) Welcome by City of Flagstaff Mayor Jerry Nabours General Session: Expansion of the Clean Water Act Topics: Proposed Rule Impacts on Agriculture, Municipalities, and Hydropower Water Transfer Rule Status of Appeal Break General Session: Regulating Regulation Topics: Endangered Species Act, Navajo Generation Station, and Food Safety Modernization Act Luncheon Sponsored by the Central Arizona Project Speaker: Governor Jan Brewer (invited) General Session: Drought Solutions Topics: Cloud Seeding, New Storage Options, Drought Planning, Desalination Break General Session: Crisis Management and Positive Media Messaging Speakers: Keith Yaskin of Flip Side Communications Dave Luker and Katie Rurark of Desert Water Agency Western BBQ and Dance

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:30 am

9:00 am

9:50 am 10:00 am

11:00 am 12:00 pm 12:30 pm 38

Headliner Breakfast Sponsored by the Irrigation Caucus Speaker: Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Topic: The Grand Canyon, 100 Years of Ecological History and Impacts on Water and Power Supply General Session: Forest Service Water Grab Topics: Forest Service Permitting Activities and New Forest Service Policy on Groundwater Break General Session: WRRDA Status and the Army Corps of Engineers Topics: Canal Safety Requirements, Potential Impacts to Reservoir Operation Plans, and Funding Federal Affairs Policy Development Committee Follow-Up Meeting Board of Directors Working Lunch Meeting Irrigation Leader

National Water Resources Association

2014 Western Water Seminar July 28–30, 2014 Little America Hotel ~ Flagstaff, Arizona Name________________________________________________________ Title_________________________________ Name for Badge___________________________________________ Affiliation_________________________________ Spouse/Guest Name (only if registered)_________________________________________________________________ Street Address______________________________________________________________________________________ City____________________________________________ State__________________ Zip Code____________________ E-mail________________________________________ Phone Number________________________________________ Please select the type of registration ❏ $550 - Member Registration (All meal functions/reception included) ❏ $600- NonMember Registration (All meal functions/reception included) ❏ $165 - Life Member Registration (All meal functions/reception included) ❏ $90 - Spouse/Guest Registration (Reception and BBQ included) Please select any additional eventse ❏ $30 - Additional Reception Ticket - July 28 ❏ $25 - Additional Breakfast Ticket - July 29 ❏ $25 - Additional Lunch Ticket - July 29 ❏ $60 - Additional BBQ Ticket - July 29 ❏ Free - Children's BBQ Ticket - July 29 #_________ (for children under 12) ❏ $25 - Additional Breakfast Ticket - July 30 Please select this box to participate in the NWRA Memorial Golf Tournament ❏ $125 - NWRA Memorial Golf Tournament - Includes one mulligan - July 28 All proceeds go toward the NWRA Internship Program. If you would like to purchase a different golf package, please see separate golf registration form. You may also purchase an additional mulligan prior to event using a separate golf registration form.

Please check one ❏ Enclosed is a check made payable to NWRA ❏ Please charge my credit card

Credit Card Type (choose one) ❏ VISA ❏ Master Card ❏ American Express

Account Number___________________________________________ Expiration Date____________________________ Name on Card____________________________________ Signature_________________________________________

Mail completed form to: NWRA, 4 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 or FAX to: (202) 698-0694 Questions: nwra@nwra.org or (202) 698-0693 Irrigation Leader

39

2014 CALENDAR May 6–9

Assn. of California Water Agencies, Spring Conference & Exhibition, Monterey, CA

May 13–14

Nevada Water Resources Assn., Water Rights in Nevada, Yerington, NV

May 16

Agribusiness Council of Arizona, Annual Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ

June 4–6

Groundwater Management District Assn., Summer Session, Atlantic City, NJ

June 11–13

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Mid–Year Conference, Horseshoe Bay, TX

July 14–18

ESRI, User Conference, San Diego, CA

June 23–24

Idaho Water Users Association, Summer Water Law & Resource Issues Seminar, Sun Valley, ID

July 28–30

National Water Resources Assn. Western Water Seminar, Flagstaff, AZ

August 20–22 Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference, Snowmass Village, CO August 21

Columbia Basin Development League, Water Day, WA

For more information on advertising in Irrigation Leader magazine, or if you would like a water event listed here, please phone (703) 517-3962 or e-mail Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Submissions are due the first of each month preceding the next issue.

Past issues of Irrigation Leader are archived at

www.WaterAndPowerReport.com