Irrigation Leader February 2011

Volume 2 Issue 2

February 2011

Keith Denos: Provo Irrigators Benefit from Canal Enclosure Project Targeting Challenges of Urbanization

Irrigation Districts Face Diverse Challenges, Develop Collaborative Solutions

By Kris Polly The number of challenges facing irrigation districts and other water suppliers continues to grow. Urbanization, aging infrastructure, invasive species, and limited water supplies are some of the most difficult. This issue of Irrigation Leader discusses many of those challenges and takes a look at the solutions developed by individuals, irrigation districts, and some private companies.

Our cover story, “Provo Irrigators Benefit from Canal Enclosure Project Targeting Challenges of Urbanization,” shows what can be done when strong leadership and local collaboration combine to face urbanization issues head on.

Water is conserved, service improved, and, most importantly, lives are protected. Funding, always an issue, is also discussed in this article.

Aging infrastructure also haunts many irrigation districts, as decades-old projects require extensive maintenance and upgrades. Mary Vandenbosch’s article on Montana’s St. Mary Project illustrates this challenge and demonstrates the value of diverse partners banding together to accomplish a common objective.

While urbanization and aging infrastructure have long presented difficulties to irrigation managers, the influx of invasive mussel species represents a new challenge to the delivery of water to irrigators. Irrigation Leader looked to both Reclamation and HDR to provide insights from their efforts to help western water users mitigate the extensive problems mussels represent.

Finally, as western states are increasingly forced to think creatively about water supply shortages, organizations in California and Colorado are proving the efficacy of marketbased solutions. Our articles titled “Irrigators and Municipal Water District Cooperate to Form Water Transfer Partnership” and “Colorado Aims to Establish Water Bank to Combat Impact of Potential River Curtailment” describe collaborative efforts in those two states.

Kris Polly is the 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 agencies. He may be contacted by e-mailing Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

2

Irrigation Leader

C O N T E N T S

FEBRUARY 2011

2 Irrigation Districts Face Diverse Challenges, Develop Collaborative Solutions Volume 2

Issue 2

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for NovemberDecember and July-August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer Jean Schafer, Project Manager Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copy Editor 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 our office by e-mailing 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 by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

COVER PHOTO: Construction of Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project, provided by the Provo River Water Users Association. For more information on the canal enclosure project, please see the association’s website at http://www.prwua.org.

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly, editor-in-chief

4

Provo Irrigators Benefit from Canal Enclosure Project Targeting Challenges of Urbanization

10

The Hon. Jay Rhodes, Water Rights Advocate, Dies at 67

8 How the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure’s Steel Pipe is Made

11

PVC Pipe Manufacturer Targets Irrigation District Water Conservation Goals

12 St. Mary Project Key to Agreements with

14

16

Canada and Indian Tribes

Reclamation Researchers Make Strides to Halt Impact of Invasive Mussel Species Invasive Mussel Infestations: A District Manager’s Playbook

By Sarah Clark and Ken Ferjancic

18

Application of Levee Safety Proposal to Western Canals Unnecessary, Duplicative

22

Irrigators and Municipal Water District Cooperate to Form Water Transfer Partnership

24

By Bob Johnson

Colorado Aims to Establish Water Bank to Combat Impact of Potential River Curtailment

26 Four States Irrigation Council Focuses on

Practical Issues, Exchange of Ideas

By Brian Werner

ater Law W 28 The Challenge of Encroachments on

Easements for Bureau of Reclamation Water Delivery Facilities

By Bill McDonald

The Innovators 32

34

Pivot Irrigation Technology Leap Aims to Conserve Water, Increase Crop Yield Desert Water Agency: Leading by Example on Energy, Water, and American Resourcefulness 3

Provo Irrigators Benefit from Canal Enclosure Project Targeting Challenges of Urbanization

U

tah’s Provo River Project was born at the height of the Great Depression to ensure adequate water supply for area irrigators and future municipal growth. Almost 80 years after its initiation as a component of the National Recovery Act of 1933, the project now provides a supplemental water supply for approximately 25,000 irrigated acres as development has spread over a community that was once almost entirely agricultural.

To ensure safety as suburban development increases, the project is now in the midst of a $150 million canal enclosure—coordinated by the Provo River Water Users Association with a diverse coalition of partners—that will also conserve water and shore up the reliability of the area’s overall water supply. However, area irrigators stand

4

to benefit greatly from the upgrade, as a pressurized supply system will replace the decades-old, gravity-fed supply structure currently in place.

At 21 miles long with an original design capacity of 550 cfs, the Provo Reservoir Canal is one of the main water delivery arteries in Utah’s Wasatch Front and is the largest canal in Utah County. Enclosure project construction began in October 2010 and is targeted to be completed by spring 2013. Keith Denos, the association’s general manager, recently discussed the goals and challenges of the canal enclosure project with Kris Polly, Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief. Following is a transcript of the January 18, 2011, interview.

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: What are the overall goals of the canal enclosure project?

Keith Denos: There are a number of goals we want to accomplish. By enclosing the canal we will see an increase in safety, which is very important to the communities the canal passes through. Years ago, the canal largely passed through orchards and pastures.

Now the canal passes through mostly developed, suburban subdivisions along the 21-mile length, so safety considerations are a big deal.

Enclosing the canal will also conserve approximately 8,000 acre-feet of water per year. The conserved water will be used in part to provide instream flows in the Provo River for the endangered June sucker, and was a big incentive for one of our partners, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, to fund half the cost of the enclosure project.

Additionally, we want to allow for redundancy in our water supply. The canal is one of three conduits from the Provo River to Salt Lake County, where a large portion of the population of Utah lives. More and more, the Provo River has become a municipal water supply source. By enclosing the canal, we are able to use it not only as a primary source, but also as a backup source should either of the other two aqueducts experience problems.

Finally, being able to put a recreational trail through this corridor was a big incentive for the community to come on board and support this project. The association worked with the Utah congressional delegation to obtain $11.75 million in federal grants for the recreation trail. There has been some unauthorized recreation over the years, but once we get the canal enclosed, Utah County will step in to coordinate the trail construction and formally open the corridor for recreation. Obviously, the primary use of the corridor is for water supply and that is recognized in the Irrigation Leader

agreement with the county to build the trail.

Kris Polly: What are the benefits of the canal enclosure to area irrigators?

Keith Denos: This project is not cheap for

irrigators—and some have chosen not to participate by ceding their shares to the water over to the municipal districts—but those that will continue on will realize a great benefit that has been subsidized by other participants in the coalition. They will now have a pressurized system, whereas before, all the water was gravity fed. While water deliveries will still occur according to each irrigation company’s demand schedule, the water will be, in effect, instantaneously there and irrigators will now have better control over the water that gets to their land.

Additionally, given Utah’s seismic activity, I think we certainly feel more comfortable having the canal in welded steel pipe as opposed to having an earthen canal. We have had a couple canal bank breaches in the history of this canal, and that is something we will not have to worry about in the future.

Kris Polly: Have encroachments on your easement been a problem?

Keith Denos: Yes. While they are not a major problem, they have been an issue at times—as they probably have been in most areas. Sometimes people do not know they are encroaching. Other times there is blatant encroachment that you have to be vigilant about and nip in the bud.

We are finding, as the construction project continues, that there are numerous small encroachments, of maybe a foot or two, but there are no major structures. For example, someone may have a fence on our right-ofway, and we have to move it back to its boundaries.

5

We are using this project as an opportunity—with Reclamation—to reestablish our right-of-way.

Kris Polly: This is a very large project and the

association is using 126-inch steel pipe to enclose the canal. What special considerations are raised when putting such a large project out to bid?

Keith Denos: When we put it out to bid, we did not have any preconceived ideas of what the final product was going to be. We knew we wanted to enclose the canal, and we knew some of the advantages that steel pipe would give to us, but we also were concerned about the potential cost, as were all of our partners and stakeholders.

When we put the project out to bid, we actually authorized three different enclosure methods. Steel pipe was one, but also reinforced concrete pipe and concrete box culverts. However, given the seismic concerns in the area, the requirements necessary to prepare the subgrade for the two concrete options increased their costs somewhat. While you might think that they would have been the lower-cost alternatives, due to the costs associated with the preparation of the grade that would be necessary to go through some of the clay or active seismic areas, it just worked out that steel pipe was the low bid. We are very happy it turned out that way, but we did not force it in that direction.

Kris Polly: Several organizations are participating in the canal enclosure effort. What challenges have you faced in coordinating the coalition?

Keith Denos: All told, two conservancy districts, a

metropolitan water district, another irrigation company, and the association were the primary negotiation parties. Because the canal is still in Reclamation’s name, 6

we also had to bring the agency, along with the U.S. Department of the Interior, into all of our discussions and negotiations. We had been working on preliminary studies and designs for about 12 years, but it was probably 3 years of pretty intense negotiations before the agreement was finalized in early 2010.

It is a challenge because everybody has their own ideas about how things ought to be done. We have good partners and they come ready to participate with their portion of the funding, which is always great, but there are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross as we move forward.

Kris Polly: As you mentioned, Reclamation currently owns the canal, but title will be transferred to the association once the enclosure project is completed.

Why is title transfer an important component of the project?

Keith Denos: The association ran into some funding issues when we were first talking about the enclosure project. This presented problems as we sought affordable funding from Utah’s State Board of Water Resources. We were concerned that the board, our shareholders, and other project participants would not be interested in funding such an expensive project that would remain in the name of the federal government after project completion.

With this concern in mind, we approached the Utah congressional delegation to sponsor a bill to transfer just a portion of the Provo River Project—just the canal and the corridor—to the association. This would enable us to get the canal in our name so that we could approach the board for loans of the amount we were looking for—around $150 million. As it turns out, transfer of title will not actually take place until after the project is done, but I believe we were able to obtain the funding we did because of the assurance of title Irrigation Leader

transfer upon completion.

That was quite an effort we undertook over one, two-year session of Congress. However, we found out at the end of the process that we actually had the most rapid title transfer experience that anyone has ever had. It was quite involved at the time, but I guess other organizations have spent many years accomplishing the same thing. We were very fortunate to have our delegation 100 percent behind us, and we appreciate Reclamation’s assistance throughout the process.

Kris Polly: What is Reclamation’s role during

construction?

Keith Denos: Reclamation has a couple roles

during construction. First, the agency is helping us with construction management. Second, Reclamation remains the the owner of the canal and the right-ofway until the title is transferred, so it has an interest in that form as well. While the association is considered the owner with respect to our relationship with the contractors, Reclamation still holds title and the association has an obligation to Reclamation in that capacity.

At the end of construction, we will petition the Secretary of the Interior to finalize title transfer as authorized by Congress, which we expect to take one or two years to complete. Then, we will own the pipeline and the corridor. However, Provo River Project will remain a Reclamation project. Specifically, Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir will remain in Reclamation’s name, as will all the other big facilities in our project.

Kris Polly: What advice would you give to other operators of Reclamation projects trying to execute similar canal enclosure projects?

Irrigation Leader

Keith Denos: As we got serious about pursuing this project, it was evident that one of the biggest challenges was funding. First, you have to get your coalition together and make sure everyone is on the same page. Then, you have to look at a number of different potential funding sources. We first looked to the stakeholders themselves, as well as Utah’s Division of Water Resources. We are now the biggest project ever in the history of Utah for the Division of Water Resources funding, so its participation was very favorable to our project—though the Lake Powell pipeline will probably surpass us when it is finally underway.

We then looked at other potential sources of funding.

We obviously looked to Reclamation for loan and grant programs that might be available there. We even applied for stimulus funds when they were available in 2009.

While we thought we might be one of those “shovelready” projects because we were mostly done with design and thought we could actually be digging dirt within 120 days, we were not ultimately chosen.

We also made efforts to shore up relationships with our local banks, even though we could not afford commercial lending for the full cost of the project. This proved important, as we were ultimately required to obtain a certain amount of private funding as part of the requirements to receive state loans.

Overall, I think inquiring about every potential source of funds—and then pursuing them—is critical.

It takes a lot of work, a lot of cooperation, and stick-toitiveness. There were a lot of times when I think many of us were beating our heads against the wall as we ran into dead ends, but people did not give up hope and here we are in the middle of construction of a viable project that will hopefully last for 100 years when completed.

7

How the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure’s Steel Pipe is Made…

In addition to the many benefits offered by the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project to water users in the area, manufacturing the necessary 126-inch steel pipe accounts for about 70 jobs at the Northwest Pipe Company’s Pleasant Grove facility. The plant’s entire workforce is employed to manufacture pipe for the canal project, which is only about 1 mile away.

“Northwest Pipe Company is delighted to be a part of the solution to the Provo Reservoir Canal Enclosure Project,” said Gary Stokes, president of the company’s Water Transmission Group.

With a history that dates back more than 100 years, Northwest Pipe Company is a leading manufacturer of welded steel pipe and tube products.

Northwest Pipe Company’s Water Transmission Group manufactures largediameter spiral-welded, and rolled and welded pipes for water infrastructure projects in diameters up to 154 inches. The spiral pipe-making process starts when steel coils are unwound, flattened, and roll-formed into spiral pipe and secured with welds both inside and outside of the pipe. Rolled pipe is produced when flat steel plates are rolled into cans and secured with longitudinal welds on both the inside and outside of the pipe.

Northwest Pipe Company maintains its headquarters in Vancouver, Washington, and manufactures pipe and tube at its facilities throughout the United States and Mexico.

For more information on Northwest Pipe Company, visit its website at http://www.nwpipe.com.

AQUALASTIC® The AquaLastic® Canal Repair System is a proven method of concrete canal crack repair.

The AquaLastic® Canal Repair System is a proven method of concrete canal crack Millionsrepair. of feet have been installed over more than 10 years and AquaLastic® has irrigation districts and10canal companies Millions of feetsaved have been installed over more than years and AquaLastic® has saved irrigation companies many thousands of dollars by many thousands ofdistricts dollarsand bycanal effectively repairing concrete effectively repairing concrete lined canals at a fraction of the cost of lined canals, flumes and ditches at a fraction of the cost of replacement. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm replacement.

Our expert applicators are now positioned throughout the Western USA.

Our expert applicators are now positioned throughout the Western USA.

AquaLastic® is manufactured in the USA Low

by Specialty Products.

Inc. AquaLastic® Pressure System AquaLastic® is the registered trade mark property of hydro consulting LLc.

AquALAstic® is A successfuL soLution for the repAir of MAnY tYpes of fLuMes, incLuding tin. high level, hard to reach flumes can also be repaired.

SALES ENQUIRIES: Hydro Consulting LLC. Call Jill Winfield 615 S. Oregon The Avelow pressure system is now available for 949-394-4228 purchase or to rent Pasco, WA 99301 jill@fixcanal.com Hydro Consulting LLC, 615 S. Oregon Ave, Pasco, WA 99301

ADVERTISEMENT

Quality Products, People & Locations Helping Irrigation Districts

Save Water

As irrigation districts throughout the western United States strive to meet the ever-increasing challenge to do more with less, Diamond Plastics Corporation stands ready to assist with critical water conservation initiatives.

Diamond Plastics delivers unmatched values in PVC pipes and you simply will not find a higher quality, longer lasting PVC pipe anywhere. We offer one of the industries widest size ranges, supplying PVC pressure pipe through 4 inches and gravity products through 60 inches.

Founded in 1982 as a small agricultural irrigation specialist, Diamond Plastics is an American manufacturer that has grown to become one of the largest PVC pipe manufacturers in the world. We have plants located nationwide including, Casa Grande, AZ, Golconda, NV, Lubbock, TX, and Grand Isl NE. We take pride in our service-oriented culture and provide the industry’s highest level of job site customer inventory service.

For more information on Diamond Plastics Corporation’s PVC pipe offerings, please contact a representative at 1-800-PVC-PIPE or visit our website at www.dpcpipe.com

The Hon. Jay Rhodes, Water Rights Advocate, Dies at 67

F

ormer Congressman Jay Rhodes—a water rights attorney who represented his Arizona district for three terms in Congress—died January 20 in Washington, DC, at the age of 67.

In Congress, Rhodes was a strong advocate for the water community and led efforts to settle longstanding tribal water claims in Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada.

Following an electoral defeat in 1992, Rhodes joined the Washington, DC, law firm Hunton and Williams. In this capacity, he continued his role as an advocate by securing authorization and appropriations for water infrastructure projects in the western United States.

A Vietnam veteran, Rhodes was the son of the legendary Arizona Congressman and House Minority Leader John Rhodes.

He succeeded his father in 1987 when John McCain—who held the seat for two terms following the elder Rhodes’s retirement—ran for the Senate.

Rhodes faced complications stemming from an October car accident in Arizona and had been hospitalized for 10 days prior to his death.

Irrigation Leader contacted a number of members of the western water community for thoughts on Rhodes’s life and career. Excerpts are below.

“We talk a lot today about working across party lines for the greater good, focusing on principles and policies and not politics. Jay exemplified that when he was in Congress. It wasn’t about opposing things or one’s own political standing.

It was about finding solutions. And that is why I am proud to call him my good friend.”

—Ray Kogovsek, former congressman from Colorado’s third district “Jay was a genuinely good person—loyal, thoughtful, wise, and selfless. He and I worked together seamlessly during his service in Congress and my tenure as assistant secretary for water and science to advance the interests of the people of Arizona and the West. Jay’s contribution to the water health of Arizona and the West cannot and should not be underappreciated.”

—Jim Ziglar, former assistant secretary for water and science and senior counsel at Van Ness Feldman in Washington, DC. 10

“Jay way a good friend and advocate for the western water community. He will be missed by all.”

—Bob Johnson, former commissioner of Reclamation, senior consultant for HDR Engineering and partner at Water Consult in Loveland, Colorado “When they call the roll of friends, Jay will be at or near the top.

He was a man of honor and values.

And, there was no greater friend or advocate for wise use of water resources or the needs and interests of his beloved Arizona. We will miss Jay. In the good times we will recall his wry humor and wit. In the tougher times we will wish he was still with us.”

—Wade Noble, president of the National Water Resources Association and attorney based in Yuma, Arizona “Jay was a great friend, a true patriot, and a unique personality. His ability to make you laugh even when events didn’t go as planned endeared him to those of us who cherished his friendship. Through his years in Congress and in the private sector, he was a strong advocate of western water development and conservation, as well as all things Arizona.”

—Tom Donnelly, executive vice president of the National Water Resources Association in Arlington, Virginia “Jay Rhodes continued a long and distinguished family tradition of public service representing the first district of Arizona. During his six years in the House, Jay was passionate in his support for the Central Arizona Project and effectively facilitated a number of negotiations that resulted in important Indian water rights and environmental settlements in the West.”

—Mike Rappoport, associate general manager of the Salt River Project in Phoenix, Arizona “Jay was an incredibly bright person with a great sense of humor. He had two great passions, water and the political process, and was a student of both. Jay really worked hard at water and could understand very complex issues. Even when he was no longer in Congress, Members of Congress sought him out for his thoughts and views on water issues. Jay was a very loyal friend. He loved his family, his home state of Arizona, and our country.”

—Sid Wilson, former general manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in Phoenix, Arizona Irrigation Leader

PVC Pipe Manufacturer Targets Irrigation District Water Conservation Goals

W

hen Diamond Plastics Corporation (DPC) began operations in 1982, open canals were the norm and many irrigation districts had not yet undertaken significant canal piping initiatives. However, the company’s growth over the past three decades has trended toward larger diameters with the increased number of water conservation projects undertaken by districts that are consistently challenged to extend limited water resources even further.

“There is a drastic difference between the 1980s and now,” said Dennis Bauer, DPC’s vice president for sales and marketing. “We all now realize that conserving water is so important. Irrigation district general managers are long-term thinkers and planners. Piping gives them great ability to store, save, and sell their water.”

As water conservation initiatives multiplied, DPC invested resources in recruiting and training leaders in the large-diameter PVC extrusion field. These investments have led to a broad product range that now features gravity PVC pipes with diameters as large as 60 inches and PVC pressure piping products up to 48 inches in diameter.

“Year-to-year it can change, but we see it moving larger and larger,” said Bauer of pipe diameters sold by DPC for water conservation projects. “Only now are we starting to see projects with diameters of 48 inches and beyond.”

Bauer lauded the quality and performance of PVC pipe, indicating that its durability and ease of installation make it ideal for irrigation districts aiming to pipe open canals.

Irrigation Leader

“PVC in general has been an absolute solid performer for irrigation districts for years and years,” he said. “If you have a product that is easy to install with a great nonleak joint and a tremendously long life, then you have a great product on your hands.”

Based in Grand Island, Nebraska, DPC operates seven manufacturing facilities—all in the United States—and has grown to become one of the largest PVC pipe manufacturers in the nation. The company employs about 400 people across the country, and many of its employees, just like their counterparts at irrigation districts or the Bureau of Reclamation, have remained with the company throughout their careers. “We have a lot of very knowledgeable folks in our business who have been with us a long time, and their experience has been key to working effectively with irrigation districts,” Bauer said.

Bauer looks forward to working with irrigation districts in the future as economic, durable water conservation solutions become necessary to deal with the challenges of the future. “We now realize that you can put in a pipe and you don’t have evaporation or leaking [as seen with open canals],” he said. Irrigation districts “are critical in using water effectively and efficiently.”

For more information on Diamond Plastics Corporation’s PVC pipe products, visit the company’s website at http://www.dpcpipe.com.

11

St. Mary Project Key to Agreements with Canada and Indian Tribes

J

ohn Muir said, “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the whole world.” The water that flows through the St. Mary Canal illustrates this concept. Citizens of the United States, Canada, and tribal nations spanning 700 miles are bound together by a diversion dam and a mere 29 miles of canal. The St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works are located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation just outside Glacier National Park in Montana and supply water to sustain irrigators, communities, fish, and wildlife along 700 miles of the Milk River in Alberta and Montana.

Part of the Milk River Project—one of the first five original projects authorized under the 1902 Reclamation Act—the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works move water from the St. Mary River to the North Fork of the Milk River. Flowing north into Canada’s province of Alberta, the Milk River supplies water to grow hay, feed grains, oilseeds, canola seed, and grass for seed production on 8,000 acres. The river also meets the needs of two towns and rural farms. Under an agreement between the United States and Canada, Alberta farmers rely on water from the St. Mary Canal. Farmer Ken Miller explained that the St. Mary Canal is “vitally important; without the St. Mary Canal only part-time hay irrigation would take place” in Alberta’s Milk River Valley. The majority of the Milk River’s flow is water diverted from the St. Mary River via

12

the St. Mary Canal during the irrigation season.

After growing crops in Alberta, the Milk River crosses back into Montana, flowing past farms and small communities along Montana’s “Hi-Line” from Havre to Nashua, supplying safe drinking water for 18,600 residents, eight irrigation districts supporting over 110,000 acres of irrigated farm land, and maintaining 7,340 acres of riverine wetlands.

Among the Hi-Line land supplied by the Milk River is that of St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group (SMRWG) Chairman Randy Reed. Reed’s greatgrandfather homesteaded in Montana’s Milk River Valley.

Today, Reed raises irrigated certified seed potatoes, alfalfa hay, and malt barley on his farm near Chinook, Montana.

Without the water diverted from the St. Mary Canal, Reed would have to forgo irrigation from the Milk River in 6 out of every 10 years.

Downstream from Reed, the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Reservation have negotiated a water rights settlement with the State of Montana; however, the compact is predicated on the continued viability of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works to deliver water to the Milk River Basin. Looking more broadly at water supply issues from a regional perspective, a 2004 regional feasibility study prepared by Reclamation for north central Montana

Irrigation Leader

concluded that rehabilitation of the St. Mary Canal System is the only alternative that would significantly address the water supply and related issues of north central Montana and produce positive economic benefits.

Built with horse drawn fresnos and tumble bug scrapers between 1906 and 1915, the centenarian St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance facilities are dilapidated and in critical need of rehabilitation. Montana gubernatorial candidate Ken Miller’s first visit to the facilities was eyeopening “The hair was standing up on the back of my neck when I saw the cracks in the hills and the rebar sticking out.” After a 2005 tour, Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen labeled the system structures the “Ancient Roman Ruins of the Montana Prairie.”

The St. Mary Canal has been shut down for periods of time ranging from one to five weeks during the irrigation season to fix one problem after another. Consequently, the State of Montana and local water users have spent more than $1.5 million to make significant, yet temporary repairs to the St. Mary facilities in the last decade.

SMRWG grew out of a meeting convened by the late Lieutenant Governor Karl Ohs in 2003 to raise awareness of the urgent need to rehabilitate the aging facilities. Now led by co-chairs Reed and present Montana Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger, the 16 volunteers representing the interests of irrigators, the Blackfeet Tribe, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, local governments, recreation, fisheries, and economic development have been working diligently together for seven years to craft a workable solution for rehabilitating the St. Mary facilities before the system suffers catastrophic failure. More than $3.5 million in state and local funds have been spent on efforts to achieve the successful rehabilitation of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works.

While funds have not been appropriated for the complete rehabilitation project, SMRWG Executive Director Larry Mires emphasizes the group’s many successes. A new bridge was built across the St. Mary Irrigation Leader

River, making it possible to transport heavy equipment necessary for rehabilitation and, at the same time, move vehicle traffic away from the antiquated siphons, which are constantly springing leaks. In spring 2010, stakeholders cooperated to complete a value planning study for replacement of the St. Mary Canal’s diversion and headworks to protect bull trout in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Thanks to the efforts of Montana’s congressional delegation—Senator Max Baucus, Senator Jon Tester, and Representative Denny Rehberg—the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorized rehabilitation of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works. In 2005, the Montana Legislature approved $10 million in bonding authority to pay a portion of the projected nonfederal costs of rehabilitation.

The eight irrigation districts that collaborate in the Milk River Irrigation Project Joint Board of Control and other SMRWG members are always thinking creatively about ways to minimize excessive annual operation and maintenance costs in the future. In fall 2010, the Malta Irrigation District provided personnel and equipment to assist Reclamation with a major effort to repair three significant slides on the canal, not only containing costs but avoiding delays associated with procuring a contractor.

Mires touts the potential to raise revenues to pay for operating costs while benefitting members of the Blackfeet Tribe by adding hydropower, wind power, and pumped storage components to generate electricity.

In a recent Irrigation Leader featured interview, Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor discussed the WaterSMART program, which he said “is intended to help provide certainty and sustainability in the use of water resources.” Reflecting on this, Reed said, “This is exactly what we are looking for with the rehabilitation of the St. Mary facilities, the certainty needed to invest in equipment and infrastructure for farming and the sustainability of the economy of Montana’s Hi-Line region, as well as the way of life envisioned by my greatgrandfather and his peers.”

Mary Vandenbosch is the State of Montana’s coordinator for rehabilitation of the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works.

She can be reached by phone at 406-444-9748 or by email at Mvandenbosch@mt.gov.

For more information on the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group, visit its website at http://dnrc.mt.gov/st_mary/.

13

Reclamation Researchers Make Strides to Halt Impact of Invasive Mussel Species

O

Mussel larvae float in the water column and are quickly ne of the most significant obstacles western water carried downstream with the water flow once introduced managers will face in the coming years begins to a new area. Additionally, adult mussels are often its life as a microscopic organism smaller in size transported over long distances after attaching to boats, than the width of a human hair. “That’s the challenge here,” further precipitating their migration. said Reclamation’s Director of Research and Development Given the rapid spread of the mussels, many of Curt Brown about the agency’s efforts to combat two Reclamation’s research efforts target early detection of species of invasive mussel that are often first introduced in their microscopic larvae using a two-part strategy. First, new water bodies by their virtually invisible larvae. “When scientists using microscopes search water from areas trying to detect something as small as this, it’s like finding where mussels commonly a needle in a haystack.” congregate. If this preliminary In the late 1980s, approach indicates the quagga and zebra potential presence of mussels, mussels native to they then subject water Eastern Europe samples to a highly sensitive were found in the polymerase chain reaction Great Lakes. Likely test that can confirm the transported in the presence of mussel DNA in ballast water held conjunction with scanning by transcontinental electron microscopes. shipping vessels, “The goal was to recognize their most pervasive them as early as possible,” impact has largely said Denise Hosler, a been observed in the Reclamation biologist who lakes and rivers of compared the two-step the central United detection approach to a States. However, the Test Trash Rack Davis person complaining of a mussels eventually – shows a sample stomachache first seeing a migrated west and material placed at primary care physician, who were first observed at Davis Dam. can make a diagnosis based Reclamation facilities on the symptoms but then on the lower Colorado recommends a confirmatory River—particularly Hoover, Davis, and Parker diagnosis be done with Dams—in 2007. more sophisticated testing.

In response, Reclamation enacted a Using an influx of multifaceted approach to detecting and stimulus funds appropriated combating their impact on western water through the American infrastructure, as well as the environment.

Scanning electron microscope photo of a Recovery and Reinvestment While the mussels yet to prevent the delivery quagga.

Act, Reclamation was of water, they represent a significant challenge, able to ramp up its early detection testing from an disrupting water flow by clogging pipes and pumps and initial sample of 60 priority reservoirs to over 350 sites corroding infrastructure. throughout the West. Hosler also credits state and local “Right now, our hydropower plants are most affected,” agencies for collaborating with Reclamation to expand the said Reclamation Biologist Fred Nibling of the mussel program’s reach. species that are currently concentrated in reservoirs, while In addition to identifying methodologies to detect the noting that hydropower generation itself has not been presence of mussels early in their lifecycles, Reclamation impacted. “Other sites across the West are less impacted, has worked to identify preventative measures and removal but time will probably change that . . . anything underwater techniques that will be essential as the two species could be a potential habitat for mussels.”

14

Irrigation Leader

bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens. Known commercially as Zequanox, testing has shown the new product effectively kills quagga and zebra mussels without harming humans or other species in the environment in general. Reclamation has received a quarantine exemption from EPA, allowing it to make emergency treatments on its lower Colorado River dams. However, EPA approval is required before the product can be marketed nationwide and its consent remains forthcoming.

In conjunction with these early detection, control and management, and research-intensive approaches, Reclamation’s preventative efforts also represent a critical front against the invasive mussel species. “Prevention is probably one of the easiest, most effective and lowest cost of these measures,” said Joe DiVittorio, the coordinator of Reclamation’s invasive species program.

As early detection testing indicates 70 percent of mussel infestations begin in reservoir watercraft Allen Skaja untangling ropes holding various grates in his test for launches, significant efforts have been made mussels at Parker Dam. to ensure watercraft are properly inspected and cleaned before entering the water. Furthermore, in continue to spread. Of primary concern is the development cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers and other of antifouling and foul release coatings intended either to federal agencies, DiVittorio co-authored the Equipment prevent mussels from attaching to infrastructure entirely or Inspection and Cleaning Manual to document procedures to to make it easy to clean mussels off once attached. prevent the spread of both terrestrial and aquatic invasive Reclamation continues to test a number of commercial species. products at Parker Dam on the California-Arizona border, The manual is targeted toward those operating various an ideal location given its heavy mussel concentration and types of equipment on land and in or near water, and availability of areas to conduct both dynamic and static represents a comprehensive approach to helping operators testing. “Manufacturers test coatings in static water with understand the potential impact of their actions, develop little movement,” said Reclamation Chemist Allen Skaja. a comprehensive inspection regimen, clean equipment if “But in a trash rack, with continuously flowing water, that’s necessary, and identify major invasive species—including where mussels like to settle most.” quagga and zebra mussels.

Skaja indicated that Reclamation’s testing has shown An invasive species contact in each region manages many antifouling coatings have limited life spans—often Reclamation’s on-the-ground response to the mussels, and less than two years—indicating costly recoatings would be the agency has helped many districts complete invasive necessary on a regular basis. While research showed that species vulnerability assessments. Initial efforts to catalog foul release coatings often produced better results, their potential areas of concern resulted in the creation of a durability remains in question given the inherent softness vulnerability assessment template. of the materials.

“It takes a few of these to get up to speed,” said Foul release coatings are also harder to install than Nibling of the vulnerability assessments. He noted that traditional epoxy coatings due to the specific timing districts should contact their area offices for assistance in involved in a successful application. Coupled with costs implementing the template’s approach. ranging from $300 to $1,000 per gallon, this potential treatment mechanism represents a significant expense.

For more information on Reclamation’s response to quagga Reclamation’s research aims to help identify materials that and zebra mussels, visit the agency’s website at will remain durable in harsh conditions. http://www.usbr.gov/mussels. The vulnerability assessment Reclamation is also working cooperatively with template can also be found at that site. Additionally, the Marrone Bio Innovations to research a new pesticide that Equipment Inspection and Cleaning Manual can be found contains dead strains of a common soil and freshwater online at www.usbr.gov/mussels/prevention.

Irrigation Leader

15

Invasive Mussel Infestations:

A District Manager’s Playbook

By Sarah Clark and Ken Ferjancic

T

hroughout the western United States, operators of water infrastructure live under the specter of invasive mussel infestations. Irrigation districts are no exception, and focused efforts are necessary to detect, prevent, and eradicate the foreign quagga and zebra mussels that are quickly becoming a serious challenge to the delivery of water throughout the West.

Because mussels multiply rapidly once found in a watershed, district managers must be proactive as they consider the potential impact on their systems. Upfront prevention measures could prove crucial to ensuring they do not impact water delivery in the future. Based on HDR’s extensive work assisting western water managers combat mussel infestations—including a vulnerability assessment study for Westminster, Colorado, and similar work for Arizona’s Salt River Project related to the rehabilitation of a fish hatchery—the firm’s expertise in this area is deep.

There are three key activities that may be essential to halting, or at least slowing, the spread of mussels: system assessment, monitoring, and a water protection plan or a treatability assessment.

System Assessment

As with any new issue, a comprehensive vulnerability assessment of the threat represented by the mussels is necessary to determine the level of potential impact. Water projects already dealing with infestations have found that the mussels frequently attach to pipes, pumps, intake screens, and other key elements of delivery infrastructure.

Once attached, they begin to layer on top of one another— up to six inches around the internal circumference of a pipe—which severely restricts infrastructure capacity.

Additionally, the capacity of earthen canals is generally reduced by 24 percent, and the capacity reduction for concrete canals is even higher, at 52 percent. Secondary water systems using smaller pipes are at a much greater

16

risk, as cleanout can be laborious, and the smallest pipes may even require replacement.

To survive, mussels require moving water (up to four feet per second), which provides them with oxygen and food. Unfortunately, the need for moving water often forces them to congregate in some of the most critical areas of system infrastructure, where fast-moving water helps them to live comfortably. Identifying vulnerable areas upfront based on the availability of water movement, as well as other physical criteria such as water temperature and oxygen level, will enable districts to determine the potential effect of an infestation. Importantly, if working with multiple intakes, one may be more vulnerable than another. Identifying areas with the highest vulnerability could be crucial, as districts may need to focus their efforts on infrastructure representing the greatest threat given limited resources.

Furthermore, districts may also need to consider the impact of mussels on existing programs to produce threatened and endangered species. For example, HDR is currently helping Salt River Project and the Arizona Department of Fish and Game to rehabilitate the Bubbling Ponds Fish Hatchery. A major issue driving the project is developing a prevention program that allows the continued promulgation of the fish while excluding mussels from the habitat.

Monitoring

Detecting the presence of mussels before they begin to multiply rapidly in a system represents a key challenge to irrigation districts. Mussels are spread as their microscopic larvae, known as veligers, float down the water column.

Once mussel veligers are identified in an area, it is only a matter of time before adults begin to attach and multiply, Irrigation Leader

as a single mussel can spawn a million veligers a year.

While the detection of microscopic organisms is not typically in the bailiwick of irrigation district managers, states and local jurisdictions have begun to follow Reclamation’s lead by investing in monitoring programs.

HDR has developed regular water monitoring programs and trained local staff in sampling procedures that may prove invaluable to detecting mussels before a large-scale infestation takes hold. This is particularly important given that the typical timeframe between the appearance of veligers and the establishment of an infestation is less than two years. The earlier districts discover a potential threat, the more time they will have to implement a prevention or treatment program.

Prevention or Treatment

While questions remain as to the viability and cost effectiveness of many new prevention measures, some low-tech techniques may represent the first line of defense.

Specifically, because mussels are frequently transported between watersheds by watercraft, many jurisdictions have enacted stringent boat transport and cleaning procedures.

Options range from keeping watercraft out of reservoirs completely, to enacting strong cleaning and drying regulations requiring permits, to instituting voluntary programs with only selective inspection. For example, Westminster, Colorado, adopted a tight recreational watercraft control scheme for those entering its water supply reservoir.

However, it only takes one watercraft to bring invasive mussel species to a previously untouched watershed, leaving many to question whether these methods

alone are enough. Planning ahead for the best mussel management approach makes sense for water purveyors with systems at risk. Frequently, treatment options are ultimately constrained by the potential impact of various treatment processes on the health of the water source. The development of a treatment plan before an infestation occurs may prove essential to identify constraints upfront.

Many operators already experiencing problems have experimented with commercial coatings on high-risk infrastructure that prevent mussels from attaching.

Yet these coatings do not last long and can come at significant cost. Other options could include the use of screens capable of catching even the microscopic veligers.

However, such screens can be expensive to purchase and require expert operation to remain viable.

Additionally, experiments have been conducted on certain chemical products, as well as on acoustic techniques and electrical methods. Each presents its own challenges, particularly when evaluating the potential impact on the environment, and many questions remain.

Overall, managers with concerns about the impact of mussels on their systems need to become involved with the growing network of public and private organizations working to mitigate their effects. HDR is part of this broad network, and its professionals are attuned to both the latest mussel defense procedures, as well as the specific needs of western water managers.

Sarah Clark is a senior project manager for HDR in Denver, Colorado. She can be reached by phone at (303) 764-1560, or e-mail at sarah.clark@hdrinc.com.

Ken Ferjancic is a vice president and director of fisheries for HDR in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

He can be reached by phone at (505) 660-5090, or e-mail at ken.ferjancic@hdrinc.com.

Quagga mussels cover the propeller of a boat.

Irrigation Leader

17

Application of Levee Safety Proposal to Western Canals Unnecessary, Duplicative

By Bob Johnson n the morning of January 5, 2008—in the middle of my Saturday morning exercise—a CNN newsflash rolled across the television screen in my Washington, DC, gym. The Truckee Canal, a key feature of Reclamation’s Newlands Project, had failed. CNN was reporting that the canal failure had flooded approximately 400 homes in a newly developed subdivision of Fernley, Nevada.

As Commissioner of Reclamation, my heart sank. I was concerned about the safety of the local residents and also about Reclamation’s responsibility as owner of the canal.

I immediately started calling my Reclamation colleagues in the field to get a more detailed assessment of the situation. It was 6:00 am in the West and the Reclamation staff there had not yet been alerted to the failure. I also called my longtime friend Ernie Shank, president of the Truckee Carson Irrigation District—the entity responsible

O

for operation and maintenance of the canal. Ernie was racing to the scene with the district’s general manager, and reported that the newsflash about the situation was correct: the 100-year-old canal had breached, and water was rushing into the homes of residents below.

The Truckee Canal failure was a wake-up call for Reclamation. Urban growth and encroachment near Reclamation canals was occurring in many areas. This was a serious problem to which Reclamation was not fully attuned. Reclamation immediately began working on a host of issues requiring fast action, including an initial review of existing canals to identify where critical conditions might dictate immediate action. Public safety has always been the highest priority for Reclamation, as demonstrated by its Safety of Dams program. It was clear that canal safety would require a similar program.

Public meetings, congressional hearings, and litigation quickly followed the Truckee Canal failure. Senator Harry

June 7, 2010, walking “wet” inspection of 60-mile segment of Rosa Main Canal near Yakima, Washington, by a Reclamation inspection team. All canal anomalies were recorded and photographed using a GPS-enabled camera. Canals were later inspected dry.

18

Irrigation Leader

of a new levee safety program proposed to be administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In my opinion, NCLS’s proposal to include western water delivery canal embankments under a new safety regime developed for flood control levees is unnecessary and duplicative.

Reclamation has a good and ongoing canal inspection program already and has spent the past two years undergoing a rigorous review of canal safety issues under Senator Reid’s legislation. Another overhaul of safety regulations based on standards developed for flood control levees is not only out of line with President Obama’s mandate to avoid duplicative regulations, but wasteful considering the funds already spent on Reclamation’s effort.

According to a publicly released NCLS letter dated December 23, 2010, this issue is being debated within the federal government.

In the meantime, it is essential that water districts throughout the West support Pump 2 check structure on Rosa Main Canal during "wet" inspection.

Reclamation’s ongoing efforts. Demonstrating a united front when dealing with canal safety issues under Reclamation’s current efforts is an essential Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation to regulate canal part of ensuring that a new wave of regulation designed safety on Reclamation projects. The senator and his staff for flood control levees is not imposed on western water worked closely with the Administration and Reclamation’s delivery conveyances. project operators to develop implementable legislation that Additionally, western water districts need to be working fully addressed canal safety needs. Senator Reid’s quick with their congressional delegations to see if legislation can action, leadership, and collaboration were applauded by all. be developed to exempt Reclamation canals from being Enacted in March 2009, the bill required inspections of subjected to the new Army Corps program. Concurrently, canals within a specified time period and provided funding districts should also be working with Reclamation and authorization for canal safety procedures. Additionally, Congress to ensure that funding is available to address the the bill allowed for much-needed repayment authority, needs identified in the canal safety reviews. permitting local districts to repay extraordinary canal The breach of the Truckee Canal was a true tragedy and maintenance costs over 50 years. litigation related to the damage it caused remains ongoing.

Today, Reclamation’s canal review process is nearing However, Reclamation’s strong, positive effort to prevent its final stages. Though some dry inspections remain in future disasters need not be duplicated by the proposed process, the agency has completed its wet inspections. flood control levee safety program.

Districts will receive reports on canal safety issues in April, and Reclamation expects to release a final report Bob Johnson was the commissioner

by February 2013. Of course, any with major identified of the Bureau of Reclamation from problems have already been notified and action plans are 2006 to 2009 and is now a senior being developed. consultant to HDR Engineering Despite these significant efforts, the recommendations and partner with Water Consult of the National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS) are in Loveland, Colorado. requiring that the embankments of water delivery canals He can be reached by phone at in the West—traditionally under Reclamation’s purview— (702) 596-0030, or e-mail at should be included in a proposed nationwide levee safety bob.johnson@waterconsult.com. program. Formed in response to the failure of New Orleans flood control levees during Hurricane Katrina, NCLS was charged by Congress to develop the outline Irrigation Leader

19

ADVERTISEMENT

Water Conservation

Sustainability

Precision

Whatever the buzzword of the day, growers are looking for ways to be good, responsible stewards of their land while still making a profit. As the leader in precision irrigation, Valley Irrigation recently announced a way for growers to do just that. Valley Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI) is the irrigation industry’s first line of variable rate irrigation zone controls integrated directly into existing irrigation controls.

“Water is our #1 issue in agriculture,” says Frank Lussetto from Broadwater, NE. “It’s our responsibility to find ways to conserve water and I absolutely see value in variable rate irrigation zone control from Valley.”

“With site-specific, Valley VRI Zone Control, growers now have the tool available to assess and match water application based on all of their inputs,” said Chad Schneider of 21st Century Water Technologies in Gering, NE. “Every good business manager assesses productivity and manages to that productivity. Frank Lussetto does just that. He is a true innovator when it comes to leading technologies.”

Lussetto added Valley VRI Zone Control to his Valley 7000 series pivot in the summer of 2010 as a test of the VRI technology. By using a Pro2 control panel, he was able to upload irrigation prescriptions based on field soil types, topography, yield maps and EM 38 data. 21st Century integrated six soil moisture sensors throughout the field and later refined the prescription based on the data from the sensors.

“Yes, I saw significant water savings, electric savings, and see potential in nutrient savings,” said Lussetto.

“We are re-designing our Valley Center Pivot with Zone Control using EC data that will allow me to better track and prove my savings. I see a lot of positive things coming from it.”

20

There are two different levels of VRI control: VRI Speed Control and VRI Zone Control.

Valley VRI Zone Control VRI Zone Control allows maximum precision irrigation via individual sprinkler or span control. This is done with up to 30 different VRI zones controlled through Valley VRI tower boxes and the Valley Pro2 control panel at a minimum of twodegree increments around the field for as many as 5400 management zones. Power line carrier communication allows each individual VRI Zone Control unit to be easily positioned at any point along the pivot span. VRI Zone Control provides the highest precision possible, and is available today.

“Valley VRI puts irrigation management decisions in action,” said Jake LaRue, Valley Irrigation VRI Product Manager. “This improves efficiency and lowers production costs, which can, in turn, increase a producer’s profits.”

The key element of the Valley VRI is the VRI Mapping program. For both the VRI Speed Control and VRI Zone Control, this computer program allows the operator to use soil texture, topography, Veris® maps, yield maps or other specific field maps to develop irrigation prescriptions.

Earl Vories, Ph.D., agricultural engineer and lead

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service in Missouri, has been researching the mechanics of VRI for five years. Vories thinks the technology is important to the future of irrigated crop production.

“Mid-South soils are highly variable within a single field,” Vories explained. “Without VRI, producers have to set irrigation rates based on an average soil type, or pick the most limiting condition.” This practice compromises potential yield on other soil types within the same field.

Vories added, “Precision operations have taken a hold on other facets of ag. It doesn’t make sense to precisely apply other inputs and not water. I think you’re going to see a big increase in adoption of VRI technology between now and five years from now.”

Valley VRI Speed Control When programmed for VRI Speed Control, Pro2 and Slect2 panels allow variable rate control for every 2-degree, pie shaped sections for a total of 180 different VRI management zones. For non-Valley brand panels and center pivots, the Valley TrackerLT is available to provide the same level of VRI Speed Control.

Valley VRI Remote Management Valley BaseStation2 and Valley Tracker Remote Monitor and Control products both allow for wireless uploading of an unlimited number of VRI prescriptions, allowing the grower to easily modify the VRI prescriptions to match his management practices through-out the growing season.

Producers can learn more about Valley VRI at local farm shows, from their local Valley Dealer, or online at ValleyIrrigation.com

“Precision irrigation starts with building a precise water management plan,” said Craig Malsam, Valley Irrigation Vice President of Engineering. “Applying the optimum level of water and nutrients through a center pivot is more important than ever. We’re excited to be the first in our industry to supply a whole new dimension of precision irrigation through our agreement with CropMetrics and their optimization service available through our Valley dealers.”

CropMetrics offers the irrigation industry’s first turnkey precision VRI data service. Working with Valley dealers across the U.S., CropMetrics provides growers full service data collection, processing and analysis along with optimal center pivot VRI design and prescription generation.

“As our single most valuable natural resource, applying excess water is an unnecessary cost. Apply too little water, and yield potential is now lost as well. Our solution is to optimally apply water specific to soil type,” said Nick Emanuel, CropMetrics President. “We’re excited to work with Valley dealers and offer Valley customers the ability to take Precision Agriculture to the next level with our unique data services and agronomic solutions.”

Valley Irrigation with VRI Zone Control, and CropMetrics with automated agronomic VRI prescription services, are also proud to announce their AE50 awards for 2011 as two of the top 50 innovative new products produced in 2010.

The CropMetrics VRI optimization service is designed to help growers with any brand center pivot manage their irrigation more effectively.

For more information log on to www.cropmetrics.com

Irrigation Leader

21

Irrigators and Municipal Water District Cooperate to Form Water Transfer Partnership

F

acing ongoing drought conditions and limitations on water that could be diverted from the Colorado River, officials of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) faced a quandary as they attempted to supply water to their region’s burgeoning population in the early 2000s. With many other avenues exhausted, MWD and Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) began negotiating a long-term agreement to transfer water from irrigators in the Palo Verde Valley following the success of a pilot land-fallowing program in the 1990s.

“Just through the law of the river priority system, it was pretty obvious it was going to have to come from us . . . but this was not an overnight deal,” said Ed Smith, PVID’s general manager, about the three-year negotiating process that ensued when MWD approached irrigators about the new program.

In California, agricultural water rights are senior to those of municipalities, and MWD faced the specter of shortages as the federal government aggressively campaigned for the state to reduce its diversions from the Colorado River. However, agricultural water transfer programs often met strong public criticism in which opponents invoked the detrimental regional impact from the purchase of Owens Valley water rights by the City of Los Angeles almost 100 years ago.

Knowing this history, MWD treaded carefully as it approached negotiations with Palo Verde irrigators, aiming to negotiate the agreement as a cooperative partnership rather than an outright sale. “[MWD] is not interested in acquiring and drying out farmland,” said Roger Patterson, MWD’s assistant general manager for strategic water initiatives. “If you’re going to develop these types of partnerships, you’ve got to go slow . . . it takes time to build the comfort level on all ends with something like this.”

In 2004, MWD and irrigators ultimately negotiated a 35-year cooperative agreement in which individual farmers could choose to participate. (About 90 percent of the Palo Verde farmers enrolled in the program.) The agreement allows the municipal district to call up to 35 percent of participating Palo Verde farmland fallowed in a given year. In exchange, irrigators choosing to participate in the program received an upfront payment of $3,215 per acre—roughly the market value of the land at the time—and receive subsequent payments in each year their land is fallowed. The annual payments are around $700 per acre and are tied to an index for future increases.

Although MWD’s agreements were executed directly with Palo Verde landowners, PVID administers the program locally and is reimbursed by MWD for its additional costs. MWD agreed to make its fallowing call to Palo Verde Valley farmers one year in advance in two-year

Ed Smith, general manager of Palo Verde Irrigation District in cotton field.

22

Irrigation Leader

increments to allow local farmers adequate time to plan for upcoming growing seasons.

To ensure Palo Verde agriculture remains productive, land parcels can be fallowed for a maximum of five years at a time, and MWD can call the maximum allocation under the agreement—about 111,000 acre-feet—in only 10 years of the 35-year agreement. Furthermore, to mitigate the potential impact of land fallowing on the Palo Verde Valley community at large, MWD established a $6 million fund administered locally to support nonprofit initiatives and economic development.

“We have no say in how these funds are spent,” said Bill Hasencamp, MWD’s manager of Colorado River resources, noting that about $1 million of the funds have already been appropriated as either grants or loans to projects such as a truck driving school and keeping a community swimming pool open.

Similarly, the PVID member of the development fund board does not vote. “By design, we stayed hands off of that . . . we felt that was best turned over to the community,” said Smith.

Smith, Patterson, and Hasencamp indicated that the success of the partnership is attributed to the close working relationship between PVID and MWD. “There’s a very strong mutual trust in this program,” said Smith.

“I would stress the importance of a continued cooperative relationship,” said Hasencamp as advice to other jurisdictions implementing similar arrangements, noting that the MWD and PVID boards of directors participate in a joint dinner each year. “With Palo Verde we sit down and work out any issues we have . . . keeping that positive relationship is very important over a 35-year term.”

This relationship may also be important once the initial agreement expires. While the upfront, $3,215-per-acre payment to irrigators approximated the then market value of the land, it was given as consideration only for the 35-year agreement and was not intended to secure perpetual rights to Palo Verde Valley water. “[MWD] knows if there is another version of this that we will be paying again,” said Patterson.

Cygnet Enterprises Inc. Weed And AlgAe Control SolutionS For irrigAtion CAnAlS And ditCheS Cygnet is a major distributor of aquatic herbicides and algaecides for the efficient control of plants and algae in irrigation canals. We work with a wide range of products that have been developed to bring greater efficiency, applicator safety and environmental safety to irrigation.

With over 36 years of experience in the aquatics industry we are confident we can assist you in this important task of efficient water delivery.

CASCADE, CLEARCAST, Chelated Copper products, SONAR, TETON and many more..

We deliver promptly and our level of service and integrity is unsurpassed in the industry and is highly valued by our many Western USA irrigation customers.

Call 877-467-8490 to contact your local sales team

Ed Smith is the general manager of Palo Verde Irrigation District in Blythe, California. He can be reached by phone at (760) 922-3144, or e-mail at ed.smith@pvid.org.

Roger Patterson is the assistant general manager for strategic water initiatives at Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in Los Angeles. Bill Hasencamp is MWD’s manager of Colorado River resources. They can be reached by phone at (213) 217-6000, or e-mail at rpatterson@mwdh2o.com and whasencamp@mwdh2o.com, respectively.

Irrigation Leader

www.cygnetenterprises.com We also have over 100 products for the aquatic environment including lakes and ponds.

Colorado Aims to Establish Water Bank to Combat Impact of Potential River Curtailment

A

The Gunnison River running through Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

24

diverse coalition of water users is engaged in proactive efforts to address the impacts to the State of Colorado of a future compact curtailment order on the Colorado River. Such an order would occur to meet delivery requirements to the lower basin states in compliance with the interstate compact signed in 1922. This coalition, consisting of the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), The Nature Conservancy, the Southwestern Water Conservation District, the State of Colorado, and Front Range Water Providers, aims to establish a water banking program in the coming years.

Though not required to date and not anticipated in the near term, Colorado and other states in the upper basin of the Colorado River have long been concerned with the possible curtailment of consumptive water use under the Colorado River Compact of 1922. While the mechanics of such a curtailment are unclear, it is universally believed that the impact on Colorado’s water users would be immense. Under the compact, upper basin states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) are prevented from causing the flow of the Colorado River to drop below 75 million acre-feet at Lees Ferry, Arizona, for any period of 10 consecutive years. Should river water deliveries from Lake Powell (immediately upstream of Lees Ferry) not meet this compact requirement, water uses established after 1922—including those required for human consumption— would be stopped.

“We are going to have a problem in the Colorado River Basin in terms of shortages,” said Taylor Hawes, the director of The Nature Conservancy’s Colorado River Program. “The demands are exceeding the river’s supplies and that’s been going on for roughly the last 8 to 10 years.”

Although the proposed water bank program remains in its formative stages, broad objectives have been outlined. “We’re trying to be proactive in dealing with a compact curtailment,” said Chris Treese, CRWCD’s director of external affairs. “This would all be done on a voluntary basis from pre-1922 owners who are able and willing to forego water use [in favor of ] critical post-1922 water uses.”

The coalition envisions the establishment of a water bank in which pre-1922 water rights holders volunteer in advance to temporarily interrupt water use in the event of a curtailment.

If a curtailment occurs, pre-1922 owners—largely agricultural users in the western part of the state—would make “deposits” into the bank by temporarily fallowing land, and critical user purchasers—primarily municipalities in both eastern and western Colorado—would make “withdrawals.” To facilitate this exchange, the coalition will explore the use of a number of reservoirs, including those of Reclamation’s Aspinall Unit on Irrigation Leader

the Gunnison River.

Ultimately, the coalition aims to develop its water banking program in advance to ensure that efforts to transact during a crisis are not hampered by administrative or environmental questions.

By matching willing buyers and sellers, the market-based approach will also ensure that pre-1922 rights holders are fairly compensated and post-1922 water users pay the appropriate amount for protection.

“We will act as a broker to put together critical municipal water uses with pre-1922 rights holders,” said Treese. “The idea is that the market will ultimately determine what type of arrangements people will enter into.”

However, the program remains in its formative stages as key legal and hydrologic issues remain unresolved. “There are a lot of important questions that need to be answered to develop a program that meets our needs,” said Hawes, noting that more specific issues related to the overall design, operation, and governance of the proposed water bank remain on hold until these more fundamental questions are answered.

Importantly, the water bank development coalition also anticipates consideration of the broader agricultural communities that may be affected, where fallowing land could impact those other than landowners compensated directly by the market. “We recognize that if this occurs [a Colorado River curtailment during a drought period] that most of the agricultural areas are going to be impacted . . . their economies are going to be suffering because of the drought,” Treese said, indicating that the proposed water bank program would also include some form of effort to assist agricultural communities at large in the event of a curtailment.

The coalition also aims to ensure the viability of any solution with respect to environmental concerns, specifically those related to the recovery of four endangered fish species. “[The Nature Conservancy] believes we can manage water for both people and nature,” said Hawes, “so we’re putting our money where our mouth is to find solutions that work for both.”

Chris Treese is the director of external affairs for the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. He can be reached by phone at (970) 945-8522, or by e-mail at ctreese@crwcd.org.

Taylor Hawes is the director of The Nature Conservancy’s Colorado River Program in Boulder, Colorado. She can be reached by phone at (303) 541-0322, or by e-mail at thawes@tnc.org.

Irrigation Leader

25

Four States Irrigation Council Focuses on Practical Issues, Exchange of Ideas

By Brian Werner

T

oo often, irrigation industry conferences ignore discussions on practical operations issues in favor of enacting resolutions on proposed state and federal water policy initiatives, what we refer to as the politics of water. Make no mistake, policy efforts are essential to maintaining western water supply in support of agricultural communities, but sharing practical insight related to the operation and maintenance of our irrigation districts is equally important.

Established in 1952, the Four States Irrigation Council takes a practical approach to serving irrigation districts in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Though initially formed as the umbrella group for an annual event sponsored

by Reclamation, Four States is now largely governed by its member organizations to continue its yearly conference and biennial irrigation tour.

The organization does not make policy resolutions or maintain a staff dedicated to influencing legislation, but merely serves as a marketplace for the exchange of practical ideas for managing and operating an irrigation district.

For example, our most recent conference, held in January, featured panel discussions on automated gates, telemetry systems, and software, as well as aquatic weed management and Reclamation’s WaterSMART program. This conference set a new high water mark for attendance with almost 200 people participating.

Additionally, the conference serves as a venue for Reclamation to meet and interact with its partners in the four states we serve. Every Reclamation commissioner since Floyd Dominy has attended at least one of our meetings, and our regional director and area managers are active participants.

Continuing the efforts of the conference, our biennial summer tour allows ditch company superintendents and operators to interact with their colleagues in the field to share and collaborate on practical water management issues.

Our next tour in August will be based in Concordia, Kansas, and participants will make stops along a 300-mile route to visit numerous ag-related operations.

Importantly, becoming a member of Four States is not a formal process, but merely requires attending one of our conferences or tours. We do not collect membership dues or maintain a members listing outside of our annual conference attendance list.

However, Four States recently took a big leap by hiring a part-time conference coordinator and establishing a sponsorship program. A number of irrigation and water districts and ag-related businesses have contributed in support of the Four States Irrigtion Council.

As part of this mission, Four States actively seeks 26

participation from not only general managers and board members, but also from those who operate the water delivery systems. This concept fits well with our focus on practical experience as those operating these water delivery systems are often able to gain new information impacting their day-to-day work—and ultimately how water can and is being delivered more efficiently to farms throughout the four-state region.

Brian Werner is a longtime Four States Irrigation Council board member and a public information officer for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in Berthoud, Colorado. He served as the conference coordinator for 25 years before turning over the duties to conference coordinator supreme Jennifer Brown in 2010.

She immediately established a Four States web presence, the fruits of which can be seen at http://www.4-states-irrigation.org.

Integrated Water Planning, Permitting, Design & Construction Services SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE OPERATION OPTIMIZATION RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES SOURCE AUGMENTATION POWER GENERATION WATER TRANSMISSION John Maxwell, P.E. 360.570.4400 www.hdrinc.com/water

ADVERTISEMENT

Don’t let an irrigation canal

ditch your environmental efforts.

When it comes to site-specific lining solutions, Huesker’s Canal3® is the preferred choice. That’s because Canal3 is a durable geocomposite, which can be used as an exposed liner or in combination with a concrete lined system. Canal3’s superior interface frictional response allows for steeper side slopes thus reducing excavation and maximizing water flow. Give Huesker a call and let us show you how you can save money and keep your irrigation waters flowing.

Applications for Capping • Water Containment Erosion Control • Reinforced Embankments

Engineering with Geosynthetics 800.942.9418 huesker.com 704.588.5500 email: marketing @ hueskerinc.com

Hue_003_Canal_Ad_vFinal.indd 1

2/11/10 4:33:05 PM

Water Law

By Bill McDonald esponsibility for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of many Bureau of Reclamation project facilities, particularly water delivery and drainage systems, has been assumed by project water users via contracts with Reclamation. On these so-called “transferred works” (the ownership of which remains with Reclamation), the first line of responsibility for protection of easements from encroachments falls to the water users as part of their contractual O&M obligations. In general, water users are required, pursuant to these contracts, to routinely inspect and maintain easements, work with landowners to avoid or remove encroachments, and inform Reclamation of unresolved situations.

In recent decades, Reclamation and its water users have encountered an increasing number of encroachments on the easements for project facilities. This article briefly surveys the source of the encroachment problem, identifies the main hurdles to protecting easements, and makes some suggestions as to how water users can address encroachment problems.

R

The Source of the Encroachment Problem

The source of the encroachment problem is twofold.

First, the land needed for Reclamation and private water delivery and drainage facilities (i.e., for canals, ditches, laterals, and drains) in the West was seldom acquired in fee through the outright ownership of land. Rather, the right to cross the land with a canal or ditch usually came in the form of (1) statutory authorization to use public lands for the construction of water delivery facilities, (2) reservations of rights of use when lands were patented into private ownership from the public domain by the United States, or (3) acquisitions of easements and rights-of-way across private property. In nonlegalistic, simplified terms, these authorizations, reservations, easements, and rights-of-way (collectively referred to as easements in this article) are interests in the land of another that entitle the owner of the easement to a limited, defined use of another’s land without interference. Thus, the underlying owner of the land upon which an easement for a water delivery or drainage facility lies retains the right to use their land as they see fit, or to grant additional easements to others, so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with the canal, ditch, or drain easement. Unfortunately, this is necessarily an invitation to future differences of opinion, especially when the easement is not well defined and documented, as is often the case (see below).

28

Second, most water delivery facilities —both Reclamation’s and private systems’—were built decades ago as part of the process of settling the then-rural West. But the population growth and attendant urbanization that have occurred since the end of World War II have resulted in many federal and private water delivery systems now being, or soon to be, surrounded by development of various kinds. As a consequence, ownerships have been subdivided, land uses on lands crossed by easements are more varied and intense than before, and transportation and utility networks that did not exist when these facilities were first constructed now crisscross the land.

This development has led to the easements for the projects being encroached upon by all sorts of facilities without the knowledge of, let alone the consent of, Reclamation and/or the entity that originally obtained, and still owns, an easement for private facilities subsequently incorporated into a Reclamation project.

For example: • Housing subdivisions and business developments are constructed on historically irrigated lands. To make the land more marketable and/or profitable, the ditch that once irrigated the property is piped and buried, and structures then built over it.

• Bridges are built over canals to access private ownerships, and canal maintenance roads are, in turn, used as access roads to private properties.

• Every imaginable kind of structural improvement —patios and decks, garages, out buildings, retaining walls, parking lots, landscaping, sidewalks, and fences—shows up on easements.

• Utilities are installed over and under water delivery facilities, and Reclamation or the district responsible for performing O&M of project facilities is then blamed when a utility is dug up and service disrupted during maintenance work, even though it never knew that a buried utility was there.

Hurdles in Protecting Easements

Even when it is clear that there is a legal entitlement to an easement, problems are often encountered in trying to prevent, or require the removal of, encroachments.

The main hurdles encountered in enforcing legal rights to easements for Reclamation ditches and canals can be divided into four categories.

1. Ill-Defined and Unrecorded Easements The first hurdle is that many easements for Reclamation’s water delivery systems are open to dispute, Irrigation Leader

or even unknown by the underlying landowner, and therefore hard to defend and protect as a practical matter.

This problem arises from having many ill-defined and/or unrecorded easements. There are several reasons for this.

First, Congress started promoting irrigation development in the West by authorizing private use of public land (i.e., land owned by the United States) for the construction and O&M of water delivery systems before the federal reclamation program was created by Congress in 1902 and before there were very many well-established state institutions for the development of water diversion and delivery projects. This started as early as the 1866 Mining Law, followed by the 1877 Desert Lands Act and the 1894 Carey Act. In 1891, Congress also granted a “right-of-way” for canals across the public lands and reservations of the United States built by irrigation entities created pursuant to state law. This act required these irrigation entities to go through an administrative approval process to obtain valid rights.

Although this statute was repealed in 1976, rights-of-way obtained under this statute prior to its repeal are still good.

Under these federal statutes, and what little territorial or state law there was at the time, the private canals and laterals developed in the last four decades of the 1800s on what was then public land were nearly always located and built without the assistance of pricey surveyors or property lawyers. Crude ditches were functional, but they were seldom surveyed or otherwise well described, let alone documented and officially recorded in county property records. Furthermore, while construction took place on what were at the time public lands, those lands were often subsequently patented by the federal government into private ownership. Since many early Reclamation projects involved the incorporation of these pre-Reclamation, private irrigation systems into the federal project, the canals and ditches in a number of Reclamation projects are located on easements that (1) were established pursuant to these early federal statutes, (2) cross what is now private land, and (3) are not well documented and, therefore, open to dispute.

The second major source of ill-defined easements on Reclamation projects is the 1890 Canal Act. Through this act, Congress reserved in all subsequent patents conveying public land in the 17 western states into private ownership a “right-of-way” for future, as yet to be identified, ditches and canals “constructed by the authority of the United States.” This reservation, which anticipated the creation of the federal reclamation program in 1902, was open ended and applied to the entire acreage being conveyed. It has been construed as a “floating” reservation that the federal government has the authority to invoke and define as needed for federal water project developments when they occurred, or may yet occur in the future.

To invoke the reservation created by the 1890 Canal Act, the government would do various things. Initially, Reclamation would post a “right-of-way notice” that Irrigation Leader

the government was going to build a canal or lateral. At the time, these notices were not recorded in county land records, and they may not have specified a width or a location for the right-of-way. Following construction, the government might have also filed “confirmation deeds.”

These were deeds that were signed by the property owner after the fact to clarify, affirm, or validate the location and width of an easement. Again, these confirmation deeds were usually not recorded.

Part of the time, however, the government put the landowner on notice that it was invoking its 1890 rightof-way simply by constructing a facility. The government’s attorneys apparently felt that construction was sufficient notice for exercising the reservation since it was a statutory right.

Originally, there was no requirement for the government to actually pay for these 1890 rights-of-way, since the government was exercising a reservation in the patent it had issued years before. Thus, there was no incentive to carefully define the easement when it was created. However, in 1964 Congress enacted legislation that required Reclamation to pay “just compensation” for the 1890 Canal Act rights-ofway exercised thereafter.

Furthermore, most of these rights-of-way were welcomed at the time of their initiation by the underlying landowners because they represented access to water and enhanced community development in the arid West. Not being very contentious, these rights-of-way were not the subject of much administrative attention in the early decades of Reclamation project development. This too contributed to these rights not being well defined and recorded.

The third source of ill-defined and/or unrecorded easements is prescriptive easements. Such easements have been acquired by Reclamation or irrigation entities through adverse possession. These easements arise from a water delivery facility having been in its current location for years with no one having challenged that fact. By their very nature, there typically is little or nothing in the way of recorded documentation of title for prescriptive easements.

In summary, these federal statutory rights for private uses of public lands, federal statutory reservations of rights from patents, and prescriptive easements result in having ill-defined and unrecorded easements that are, in turn, difficult to defend and protect. In many cases, the width and location of the canals, ditches, or other facilities built under these various authorities have yet to be thoroughly documented, because the legal interests were neither recorded in the county records nor well defined through conveyance deeds. This left, and still does leave, future owners of what is now private property unaware of the existence of an easement across their land because it does not show up on a title search. It also leaves ample room for arguments about the nature and extent of such easements.

29

2. Changing Maintenance Requirements A second problem that is encountered when trying to enforce easements for project facilities involves changing technology and equipment. Original widths of easements were defined, if at all, based upon the use of the tools of the day. Those tools usually included a small team of horses and anything that could be carried in a wagon. Today, more space may be required to accommodate earth-moving equipment and larger vehicles. A width larger than is required for routine annual O&M could also be required periodically for major maintenance work.

Be this as it may, courts typically construe easements narrowly so as to effectuate the purpose of the easement while minimizing the impact on the underlying fee owner.

This means that just because a wide easement would make O&M easier with today’s equipment, you cannot expect a court to dislodge accomplished encroachments without a lot of convincing, particularly if the easement involved is illdefined as discussed above. Convincing a court takes time and money, and this becomes a practical constraint on the protection of easements.

New technology can also lead to a reduction in the width of an easement. For example, with a modern backhoe a district may no longer need maintenance roads along both sides of a canal to accommodate teams of horses. In these circumstances, a court may not agree to the removal of encroachments on one road if the other road is unimpaired, especially if the offending encroachments have existed without objection from Reclamation or a district for a long time.

3. The Judicial System The third hurdle to achieving the removal of existing encroachments is the view of most courts. Although it is technically accurate as a matter of law that neither the property rights of districts nor the property rights of the United States are subject to being taken by prescription (i.e., by hostile, notorious, and open trespass), courts are in fact reluctant to evict those who encroach on canal and ditch easements. They are even more reluctant to rule against encroachments caused by the underlying landowner.

Seeking to protect an unrecorded and ill-defined easement that has been the subject of an accomplished encroachment by the underlying fee owner is not going to receive a warm reception in any court.

4. Limited Resources of the U.S. Department of Justice If legal action is required to protect a Reclamationowned easement, it must be brought by the United States.

Reclamation’s water users do not have the legal authority to seek to enforce federally owned property rights.

A request from Reclamation to file an enforcement action for trespass on a federally owned easement is generally not a high priority for the U.S. Department of Justice. Given that many easements are, as discussed above, 30

poorly defined and often unrecorded, the view of the courts toward encroachments, the high-profile cases flooding the department, and the department’s limited resources, getting a U.S. Attorney Office to agree to file a lawsuit over an encroachment issue is very difficult at best.

Suggestions for Addressing Encroachment Problems

Protecting easements from additional encroachments, and trying to remove already existing encroachments that unreasonably interfere with the use of an easement, will be a never-ending process as the development and urbanization of the West continues. Here are some brief thoughts on what water users can do to address this challenge on the transferred works that they O&M. (1) Define and Record Easements—For easements acquired in ways that did not originally involve clear legal descriptions and recording of documents in county land records, high priority needs to be given in areas of urbanization to defining and recording easements. It is a tedious and time-consuming task, but one that must be undertaken with diligence.

Consider also producing digitally mapped easements to allow for the information to be easily shared and utilized by a broad number of internal and external customers.

(2) Use Other Documentation—In those instances in which the locations and widths of the easements needed to effectively operate and maintain existing facilities are not documented, consideration should be given to using other, less-formal authorizing documents (e.g., consents to use) to memorialize the agreement of underlying landowners—at least as a temporary, stop-gap measure. New technologies such as GPS, LiDAR, and aerial imagery photo interpretation offer promise as cost-effective ways to map facilities in lieu of full land surveys, with such mapping used to support the authorizing documents. And, of course, record the documents with the county.

(3) Harden Locations—In urbanizing areas, a fence —visible and unequivocal in its location—may be worth a thousand words on paper in a legal document. While not cheap, and while not capable of creating a wider easement than legally exists, fencing an easement is a straightforward way of putting landowners on notice as to the existence of an easement.

(4) Be Alert—To ensure good management of the easements for Reclamation project facilities, there must be a physical presence in the field. Field staff serves as Reclamation’s and the water users’ eyes and ears. They can alert managers of possible encroachments early on. A high priority should be placed on education of field staff so that they know Irrigation Leader

what easement rights exist, where they are located, how wide they are, and what forms encroachment might take.

(5) Communicate with Landowners—All water users need to have a notification process for communicating to a landowner that an easement exists. This gives the underlying landowner the chance to express their concerns and identify potential differences of opinion about the nature and extent of an easement. Communications to landowners need to be clear about the specific easement rights that exist. Don’t talk in generalities; be explicit and precise. Communications with landowners should always be documented, including written documentation of informal conversations.

(6) Communicate with Local Government Agencies—Good lines of communication with local government agencies (e.g., highway districts, municipalities, counties, etc.), and with the local developers subject to such agencies’ planning, zoning, and other land use approval processes, are as important as communicating with the owner of the land upon which an easement lies. There are several reasons for this.

First, it is a way to alert such agencies to and educate them about historic, unrecorded easements.

Second, it gives you a chance to determine what level of documentation these agencies need to record previously unrecorded easements. In Reclamation’s experience, the most successful format for working with counties has been to exchange digitally mapped easements.

Third, water users should not hesitate to insert themselves into planning and zoning processes to assure that they are given the opportunity to review subdivision plats prior to their approval. Bringing easements to the attention of local officials early in their processes can help avoid problems down the road.

Fourth, water users should begin a dialog with developers in areas where facilities are located. Let them know who to contact about the facility, what an easement interest is, what the landowners can and cannot do on the easement, what O&M entails (e.g., debris piles placed on the easement when a ditch is cleaned out every year), and what process must be followed to change a potentially impact project facility or its location.

Fifth, water users would be well advised to develop educational materials about easements, which can be inserted by developers with purchase information or with title reports, to educate the landowner whose property is encumbered by an easement. Developers may be resistant to this idea but, if accepted, it could go a long way toward Irrigation Leader

successful reduction of future conflicts.

(7) Be Consistent—One cannot over emphasize the importance of consistence. If a district’s board of directors starts down the slippery slope of looking the other way for this encroachment, and maybe that one over there too, they will find it politically and legally very difficult to tackle encroachments elsewhere. Looking the other way is not going to work. The breaks given to one landowner who is encroaching on an easement over their land will be expected by other landowners. Boards of directors must be prepared to take on the hard cases, even when they involve water users within their own systems, elected officials are applying pressure, and the issues are messy.

A Concluding Observation

Reclamation should continue to partner with its water users in these efforts, even in these tight budget times.

Defining and protecting easements must be a team effort.

Taking responsibility to protect them, working to prevent encroachments, or to have them removed as soon as they are discovered, and trying to prevent law suits with a proactive management approach, is a shared responsibility.

Given growth in the West, this will be a neverending process and one which Reclamation and its water users must undertake together. It cannot be avoided.

J. William “Bill” McDonald has extensive experience in western water resources management, having served for 31 years in senior executive positions both in state and federal government.

He now has his own consulting firm, McDonald Water Policy Consulting, LLC, in Boise, Idaho.

From 1979-90, Bill was Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. During his tenure, he also represented Colorado on several compact commissions and other interstate organizations.

In 1990, Bill joined the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Over the next 20 years he served as the Regional Director for the Pacific Northwest Region, a Special Assistant to the Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner, and a Deputy Commissioner. During the 2001 and 2009 Presidential transitions, he was appointed the Acting Commissioner. In 2003, the President conferred on him the Meritorious Federal Executive Award.

Bill has degrees in chemistry, natural resources management, and law, and is admitted to the Colorado Bar. He and his wife have eight children, six of whom are adopted and of various national and racial heritages. He can be contacted at McDWaterPolicy@aol.com or 208-859-2534.

31

The Innovators 32

Pivot Irrigation Technology Leap Aims to Conserve Water, Increase Crop Yield

Irrigation Leader

T

hough advances in technology over the years have allowed irrigators to vary the speed and rate of their pivots, the inability to regulate the water delivered to more specific sections of a field based on soil composition has long resulted in over watered land. Seeking to simultaneously conserve water and increase crop yields, a Nebraska-based company recently introduced a precision irrigation system marrying new technology with irrigation management solutions that allow irrigators to more readily regulate water flow.

Founded in 2009, CropMetrics formed an alliance with Valley Irrigation in January to market a precision irrigation system that enables growers to divide their fields into as many as 5,400 zones. “When a grower signs up, the first thing we do is go into the field and map the soil type and topographic variability,” said company President Nick Emanuel. “We process that data to generate a variable rate irrigation (VRI) prescription and a complete water management plan.”

Emanuel indicated there are two types of variable rate irrigation control. The more basic VRI speed control system allows irrigators to divide fields into two degree slices. Dividing the irrigated area in this manner provides growers the ability to automatically adjust the speed of the pivot for the entire slice based on the majority soil type of that slice. VRI speed control is simple and economical to implement on virtually any center pivot irrigation system equipped with a Valley computer panel or position-based telemetry system.

However, Valley and CropMetrics now offer a more advanced VRI zone control system as well. Essentially, growers can not only divide their fields into two degree slices, but can divide each slice into as many as 30 different sections. By incorporating the company’s advanced precision irrigation management program along with new Valley technology, growers can wirelessly implement a zone-based management plan with pivots capable of adjusting flow rate to the level of each individual nozzle.

“When compared to other precision agronomy technologies available, this is much more advanced than what a planter or fertilizer applicator can do today,” said Emanuel. “The irrigation rate prescription gets sent from our Virtual Agronomist software to the Valley controller all wirelessly, making it extremely easy for the grower to implement.”

Emanuel noted that even if a VRI prescription does not reduce the overall amount of water that flows to fields, the system allows irrigators to prevent water from running off the field or being spread over areas unlikely to produce significant crop growth, ultimately optimizing the overall water application. Additionally, by preventing overwatering in more fertile areas, growers can see an average increase in yield of up to 15 percent. CropMetrics is working with other groups, including Fontanelle Hybrid’s AquaView program, to further research the benefits of its system.

Importantly, CropMetrics has also established a training program for local agronomists. The program aims to allow those with local knowledge to provide support throughout the growing season. The program cost is $8 per acre per year for the data processing, prescription services, and irrigation management plans.

For more information on CropMetrics, visit the company’s website at http://www.cropmetrics.com.

Electromagnetic soil mapping using GPS technology in progress.

Irrigation Leader

33

T

he tourism industry of Palm Springs touts the golf and the sunshine as draws to the Southern California city. The local water purveyor, on the other hand, sees different opportunities—potential for recycled water customers and a source of clean energy.

Desert Water Agency (DWA) embraced recycled water decades ago and began relying on solar energy in 2005.

Now the agency is looking forward to pairing the two renewable strategies.

DWA, whose boundaries include Palm Springs, portions of Cathedral City, and unincorporated Riverside County areas with 22,000 active potable services, is a State Water Project contractor importing supplies since the 1970s.

“DWA is well positioned to make use of these great advantages in our area,” said General Manager David Luker. “The agency has prioritized doing our part to make the best use of our own resources and help ease the California water crisis as a whole.”

Although DWA is an SWP contractor; there is no connection from the project to the Coachella Valley. DWA, in cooperation with Coachella Valley Water District, entered into an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District that allows the Coachella Valley to exchange SWP entitlements for Colorado River water.

The agreement has allowed the area to maintain a reliable imported supply, but DWA is also working to further reliability and, therefore, reduce demand on the California water supply, through recycling.

Recycled Water

Desert Water Agency: Leading by Example on Energy, Water, and American Resourcefulness 34

DWA began water recycling to offset the high irrigation demand in 1987. Currently, the agency serves 11 active recycled water meters, delivering about 4,200 acre-feet of reclaimed water annually.

“The economy of Palm Springs is heavily dependent on tourism and golf, so the demand for irrigation supplies has always been high,” said DWA Board President Patricia Oygar. “Recycling water was a natural fit here.”

Currently five of six 18-hole public golf courses in Palm Springs are served by recycled water; the sixth is set to be connected by the end of the year through the expansion project. Additionally, other large irrigation customers— sports fields, medians, parks, and other local gardens— switched to reclaimed water as well.

The recycling program had been so successful that DWA’s supply was maxed, particularly in the summer months when wastewater effluent supplies are low and demand for recycled water peaks.

Solar Power

Capitalizing on the other tourist draw for Palm Springs, 360 days of sunshine, DWA then took to harnessing solar power. In 2005, DWA installed a 350 kilowatt solar field behind the Operations Center building. The power, Irrigation Leader

Colorado River water flows over a spillway at DWA’s spreading basins.

Aerial view of DWA’s recharging aquifer spreading basins.

generated by 2,028 modules, runs the daily operations of DWA’s offices and warehouses. Additional power is delivered back to Southern California Edison through a net energy metering interconnection agreement.

The field requires little to no maintenance and generates more power than is necessary for daily functions.

Meeting the Demand

Now the agency looks forward to expansions of both solar power generation and water recycling capacity.

“We’ve seen tremendous success with both of these innovative facilities and programs; it’s only natural we would want to expand them both—especially if we have an opportunity to do so in tandem,” said DWA Board Vice President Tom Kieley III. During high water demand periods, DWA is forced to supplement the recycled water supply with potable water.

Utilizing an air gap connection, the agency is capable of delivering 1,500 gallons per minute of potable water into the plant’s effluent water storage reservoirs.

In 2009, the agency used approximately 120 acrefeet of potable water to supplement against high demands. Although necessary, this process is extremely counterproductive, incurring potable water costs while charging recycled water rates and increasing the amount of potable water removed from the ground water supply.

DWA is taking a number of steps in the coming years to remedy this issue and thus protect the ground water supply, reduce energy use, and stabilize recycled water revenues.

The agency will drill two shallow wells at the plant site. The wells will produce nonpotable water that can be pumped into the plant’s influent reservoirs when wastewater effluent supplies are low. The shallow depth reduces construction costs, about $1.2 million total, and the wells will be equipped with small, efficient motors.

Installation of these wells eliminates the need for the supplemental potable water service.

Storage capacity is being increased through the replacement of a hydro-pneumatic tank to better control pressure and the installation of a 500,000 gallon reservoir, which will also provide flexibility in maintenance, inspection, and repairs of existing facilities. The new reservoir allows for settlement and automated removal of solids prior to filtering, which decreases shut-down time for

Irrigation Leader

The Agency’s water recycling plant produces supply to irrigation customers.

The DWA solar field nears completion in 2005.

manual cleanings. These changes will increase efficiency and allow DWA to better manage fluctuations in supply and demand.

Although recycled water uses about 75 percent less energy than ground water pumping, power costs remain a substantial portion of operating costs for the plant. Prior to upgrades, the reclamation plant utilized 2 million kilowatthours a year.

Learning from the successes of the existing solar field, the upgrades to the reclamation plant collaborate with an expansion of the solar field.

Following a thorough request-for-proposal process, DWA determined the best fit would be an expansion of an additional 850 kilowatt ac tracking system. The use of such a system would reduce the agency’s demand on the electrical grid as well as maintain low recycled water rates.

The expansion is estimated to cost approximately $6.2 million, some of which may be offset by grant or incentivized funding.

Cost/Benefit

DWA estimates total project cost to be $11.7 million, $5.5 million of which is plant upgrades, spread over several years’ Capital Improvement budgets. The project will allow for more efficient management of reclaimed water supplies and reduce demand on potable water.

Presumably, production of recycled water will increase 1,000 acre-feet per year, and the project has a life expectancy of 25 years. $5.5 million (plant upgrade costs) divided by (1000 (acre-ft, better managed) * 25 (yr, improved life)) equals $220 per acre-foot * year.

At $220 per acre-foot per year, this project has the potential to be one of the least expensive sources of water available to DWA compared with State Water Project entitlements, additional purchases, or other options like desalination.

The solar facility has a life expectancy of approximately 25 years and is expected to pay for itself within 12 years.

DWA’s investments in water recycling upgrades and solar expansion have the potential to decrease costs while protecting the ground water supply.

35

Integrated Water Planning, Permitting, Design, Optimization & Construction Services

2011 CALENDAR

John Maxwell, P.E. 360.570.4400 www.hdrinc.com/water

Feb. 1–3

Nevada Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Reno, NV

Feb. 8–10

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Texas Water Day, Washington, DC

Feb. 23–25

Western Arid States Coalition, Winter Conference, Fort Worth, TX

Feb. 24–25

Family Farm Alliance, Annual Meeting and Conference, Las Vegas, NV

Mar. 1–4

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Annual Convention, Austin, TX

Mar. 1–3

Assn. of California Water Agencies, Washington, DC, Conference, Washington, DC

Mar. 8

Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, Water Conference, Kearney, NE

Mar. 8–9

National Waterways Conference, Legislative Summit, Washington, DC

Mar. 12–16

Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, DC Legislative Conference, Washington, DC

Mar. 16–18

Irrigation Assn., Legislative Conference, Washington, DC

Apr. 4–6

National Water Resources Assn., Federal Water Seminar, Washington, DC

Jun. 22–24

Western Arid States Coalition, Annual Conference, San Diego, CA

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.