Irrigation Leader January 2012

Volume 3 Issue 1

January 2012

Jim Parks: Forward-Thinking Policies in Texas Take Aim at Effects of Historic Drought

The Value and Challenges of Irrigation and Power

By Kris Polly

N

othing demonstrates the value of water like a drought. The consequences of the current Texas drought are shocking: over $5 billion in agriculture losses so far. Should 2012 prove to be equally dry, Texas will experience a new record drought, worse than during the 1950s. Jim Parks, President of the Texas Water Conservation Association and Executive Director of the North Texas Municipal Water District, discusses ways Texas is leading the way to a well-supplied water future in this month’s featured interview. Much can be learned from the Texas experience, and many of the state’s solutions have applications throughout the West.

The articles included in this issue of Irrigation Leader discuss the value and challenges associated with water and power. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) explains the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act (H.R. 3680), co-authored by Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), which is designed to create jobs by removing and simplifying the barriers to additional hydropower development. Gary Esslinger, Manager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, discusses his and others’ efforts to form the Low-Head Hydropower Working Group to collectively work with the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, Reclamation, and Congress to develop a simplified process for small hydropower development. Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor provides an overview of the many water and power issues facing Reclamation beneficiaries. David Modeer of the

Central Arizona Project discusses the importance of continued availability of affordable power to irrigators in the region.

Additionally, this issue features articles about the value of agriculture to the West. Washington State Farm Bureau President Mike LaPlant discusses his organization’s grassroots approach to supporting agricultural interests.

Rusty Jardine of Nevada’s Truckee-Carson Irrigation District highlights efforts to educate students about the importance of agriculture to their community. Kennewick Irrigation District Planning Manager, Scott Revell, details recent efforts to develop new irrigated acreage for grape growers in a booming wine region.

Other articles include a discussion of Reclamation’s continued efforts to combat the threat of invasive mussel species and a challenge to Clean Water Act enforcement currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. This month’s “Innovators” section highlights the benefits of a tractorpowered water pump and the international reach of a water screen company located in a California farming community.

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

Manager Position with Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project The Lower Yellowstone Project Board of Control is accepting applications to manage the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project that provides irrigation water to farms in the Yellowstone River Valley in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Physical features include a diversion dam and diversion works; about 400 miles of water distribution and drainage waterways; and numerous water control structures serving 1,500 farm units on 56,000 irrigable acres in the Yellowstone Valley.

For more information on this position and others, access the “Jobs” section of the Water and Power Report website at www.waterandpowerreport.com.

All irrigation district, water management, power generation, as well as water and power issue-related positions may be posted to the Water and Power Report site at no charge. To post your position, please notify us of your interest through the “Contact Us” section of the web site.

2

Irrigation Leader

C O N T E N T S

JANUARY 2012

2 The Value and Challenges of Irrigation and Power Volume 3

Issue 1

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for November-December and July-August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210 Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer James Heath, Advertising Sales 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 James Heath by phoning (310) 471-3630 office, (310) 701-8401 cell, or 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: Jim Parks, President of the Texas Water Conservation Association.

Photo provided by North Texas Municipal Water District staff.

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

4 Forward-Thinking Policies in Texas Take Aim at Effects of Historic Drought 8 Creating Jobs With Hydropower

By Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers

9 A Path Forward for Development of Low-Head Hydropower by Irrigation Districts

By Gary Esslinger

10

14

From the Bureau of Reclamation: Connor Outlines Challenges, Successes From 2011 While Looking to Future Viability of Central Arizona Agriculture Depends on Continued Availability of Affordable Power

By David Modeer

17 Washington Farm Bureau Supports Diverse Agricultural Interests With Grassroots Approach

By Mike LaPlant

20

23

Reclamation Continues Research Efforts to Combat Invasive Mussel Species Teaching Students the Value of Agriculture, the Need for Irrigation

By Rusty Jardine

District Focus:

26 Growing a Local Economy Through Irrigation Development

By Scott Revell

Water Law:

28 Compliance—or Else

By Timothy Sandefur

The Innovators:

30 Tractor-Powered Pump Moves Water Quickly, Economically 31 Water Screens Built in California Farming Community Thrive in International Marketplace 3

Forward-Thinking Policies in Texas Take Aim at Effects of Historic Drought

A

s Texas continues to suffer from the effects of a historic drought, water management officials are working to implement infrastructure, efficiency, and conservation measures to support the state’s population and economy.

Recently, Texas voters adopted a constitutional amendment to grant the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) an additional $6 billion in bond authority. The additional funds will be used to implement the goals of the state water plan.

Jim Parks is the president of the Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA), which is devoted to conserving, developing, protecting, and using the water resources of the state for all beneficial purposes. He is also the executive director of the North Texas Municipal Water District in Wylie, Texas.

Kris Polly, Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, interviewed Parks to discuss the challenges the state faces and the solutions water managers are working to implement.

4

Kris Polly: How would you characterize the challenges Texas is facing?

Jim Parks: The most immediate challenge is dealing with the impact of having suffered the hottest and driest summer on record. Much of Texas remains in the worst drought conditions in Texas history. The state has been ravaged by wildfires that were pushed by the dry grasses caused by drought conditions. There were millions of trees lost throughout the state. There have been enormous losses to irrigated agriculture, as well as livestock and forests. Across the state, the municipal water supplies, whether from surface water sources or from ground water sources, are becoming dangerously low. From an irrigated agriculture perspective, 8 of the last 14 years have seen huge agriculture losses across the state. But 2011 was actually the worst by far, with losses in excess of $5 billion, which is a conservative estimate.

As water supplies continue to decline, there has always been, and probably always will be, the struggle between how we balance the needs for water during severe drought

Irrigation Leader

among municipal, agricultural, and industrial uses. The TCEQ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] is exercising control over junior and senior water rights.

Allocation of water is a tremendous challenge in a drought, a situation that continues with apparently no end in sight.

Kris Polly: Ever since the state experienced the historic drought of the 1950s, Texas has been very forward thinking as far as developing its water supplies with the formation of TWDB. It is our understanding that TWDB will be receiving additional authority of $6 billion. Can you address how that may affect the state from TWCA’s perspective?

Jim Parks: Coming out of what was previously identified as the drought of record, TWDB was created in 1957 for the purpose of issuing general obligation bonds to support financial assistance programs for planning, design, and construction of all sorts of water-related projects. The state took to heart in a very serious way the effects of severe drought and the devastation that droughts cause, and created TWDB to provide a vehicle for financing water projects. As it has turned out, TWDB’s funding authority was basically nearing depletion prior to this last legislative session, and in that session, a constitutional amendment known as Proposition 2 was proposed, which authorized TWDB to issue additional general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $6 billion outstanding at any one time for water-related projects.

The interesting part about the new bond authority is that it is not a one-time authorization, but an evergreen or revolving type of program. As the funds issued for water projects are repaid, they can be reinvested to allow a continuation of authorization as long as the total outstanding obligation does not exceed $6 billion. This is a great benefit to a multitude of water interests in Texas with respect to having the ability to acquire loans that are available at market-comparable AAA-rated interest rates or lower. Many of the large entities in Texas can finance projects as cheaply as TWDB, but there are a large number of medium-sized and smaller entities that do not have that ability, and this financial assistance program provides them an avenue to have a project financed at low interest, thereby saving the entity money. These entities might not otherwise be able to finance projects that support the implementation of the state water plan. So without that funding, the ability to implement the state water plan across Texas would be significantly affected. The plan is critical to the economic vitality of the state.

The Regional Water Planning Groups have estimated the negative impacts that we could expect if we were not to develop additional supplies and water management strategies. These projections indicate that Texas could see income losses pretty quickly in the vicinity of $12 billion annually, and over a 50-year planning horizon, those losses Irrigation Leader

could rise to $116 billion. We would not be able to support the projected population growth of the state without the additional supplies and management strategies. Over the last several years, the U.S. economic downturn has resulted in thousands of jobs lost. We are certainly not interested in anything that would further erode the job market and, in fact, produce additional job losses, but that is what we would see if we did not move forward aggressively to develop needed water supplies. We could have job losses of over 100,000 almost immediately and, by 2060, over 1 million job losses in an economy that would otherwise support those jobs. So there are many benefits that the state gained from the passage of Proposition 2.

Kris Polly: Is it your understanding that the projects that could be funded through TWDB can be used for all types of water supply, including irrigation districts?

Jim Parks: The loans are limited to political subdivisions, which can include cities, counties, irrigation districts, water authorities, and other nonprofit water supply corporations and special law districts. As long as the project is in the state water plan and is related to water development, efficiency, or wastewater and flood control, this financial assistance is available. There are hundreds of political subdivisions that can take advantage of this loan program.

It is my understanding that this bond authority also allows TWDB to continue to participate in the federal programs that it currently participates in, such as the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds. There is a state match that has to be made to obtain federal funding, and this authority would also support those programs on a broader basis.

Kris Polly: How would you characterize federal participation in Texas water development projects?

Jim Parks: Limited but necessary. Historically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has played a large role in Texas water development projects through partnerships with local sponsors, combining USACE’s mission of flood control with development of water supply.

For USACE to develop a water supply project outside of its primary flood control mission, Congress would need to redefine the Corps’ mission. USACE remains the primary federal agency responsible for water development project permitting. Certainly, the enormous challenges of providing a sufficient water supply to meet future growth projections could be better met by a greater direct involvement of USACE and potentially the Bureau of Reclamation in Texas.

Kris Polly: As president of TWCA, what would your message be to other state organizations that may be 5

considering creative funding solutions to handle drought and other water supply problems on their own?

Jim Parks: The drought of 2011 has had a devastating impact on agricultural irrigation, livestock, and municipal water supply. Crops have been lost, herds have been sold, and lakes are at record low levels. Water suppliers need relief from drought conditions and access to low- or nointerest financing from either the state or federal agencies to recover from the drought. TWDB is now in a position to help make necessary loans by virtue of passage of Proposition 2 during the last election. Federal assistance can best be had when Texas water users unify their interest and speak with one voice. There is no better organization to achieve this goal than the Texas Water Conservation Association.

Kris Polly: Texas was very forward thinking in the development of its state water plan many years ago. Would you say that its formation has been necessary for Texas to be where it is now as far as developing future water projects?

Jim Parks: Absolutely. The state water planning process was created in 1997 by the Texas Legislature in response to a need, which was amplified by drought conditions for a statewide comprehensive water plan. At the time, many of the larger utilities had long-range plans, but most of the smaller utilities often did not, so coupled with population projections forecast to double over the next 50 years, the statewide planning process was born. Today, after three 5-year planning cycles, not only does Texas have a comprehensive 50-year plan, but also the planning process itself has provided a venue that did not exist on a statewide basis prior to 1997, which has brought water entities together in such a way as to promote much better regional cooperation. As we move forward, the biggest threat to development of sufficient water supply is uncertainty— uncertainty about the meaning of rules and laws, about regulatory policies, about actions by federal and state agencies. Uncertainty leads to wasted time, higher cost, and poor decisions. It is hard to plan and implement projects in the face of uncertainty.

Texas

Water Day 2012

January 31 - February 2, 2012 The Liaison Capitol Hill Hotel Washington, D.C.

TWCA has scheduled the Eighth Annual Texas Water Day, which will take place January 31 – February 2, 2012, in Washington, D.C. We will kick off the activities with a planning session, briefing, assignments, and get together in Metropolitan Center at 3:30 p.m., January 31, 2012, in, 415 New Jersey Ave., NW. Another briefing will be held at breakfast which will be served starting at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 in the Metropolitan East/West, prior to moving to facilities at the Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building (CHOB).

The Congressional Reception will be held on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in Room B-338/339 of the Rayburn House Office Building. In addition, AGC of Texas has made the AGC townhouse in Washington available to those participating to refresh and rest.

New Approach for Texas Water Day 2012

We will follow a different approach for Texas Water Day 2012. Key Texas Delegation Members, prominent federal agency heads, and others will speak to the TWD participants as a group at scheduled times during the day on Wednesday, February 1st. This approach will allow all participants to hear from key Members and federal agency staff, and reduce our overall down time.

More details will be provided when you register.

Texas Water Day is an effort to inform the Texas Delegation and other key members of Congress, and members of Committee Staff and Federal Agency Staff of the critical water issues facing the state today.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pivot stuck again? Put your log chain away.

RAAFT TRAcks will solve your problem.

by PolyTech LLC

• Quick & easy to install • Keeps center pivots from getting stuck • Reduces or eliminates tracks and ruts • Fits tire sizes: 11.2x24, 11.2x24.5, 11.2x38, 14.9x24 • Can withstand bridges yet float with ease over acres of muddy terrain Wholesale prices available to irrigation districts, NRDs, groundwater management districts, and other distributors for large purchases.

RAAFT tracks are manufactured using a rugged polyethylene/carbon composite plastic that is 100% recyclable and floats with ease over acres of muddy terrain. RAAFT Tracks are designed to operate in field conditions from 40° F to 105° F, with water being applied to the wet the track. It can be winter moved at temperatures down to -10°. Lightweight enough to be carried/dragged by one person, 4 to 6 bolts for installation per tower, depending on the model.

For more information, please visit our web site at

www.RAAFT.com

e-mail raaftsales@gmail.com or phone (402) 261-5774

Creating Jobs With Hydropower

By Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers

A

t a time when America’s economy is still fragile, job creation is stagnant, and energy prices are rising, we should be looking at every opportunity to put Americans back to work and increase domestic energy production.

America’s hydropower industry is ready to meet these challenges.

As eastern Washington’s voice in Congress, I know that hydropower helped build the Pacific Northwest. Decades ago, it turned what was once a desert into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country. In addition to providing flood control and transportation, dams also provide the affordable, renewable energy that helped give birth to Boeing and Kaiser Aluminum, and then turned them into global leaders in specialized manufacturing.

Now the dams are powering high-tech data centers in eastern Washington such as the Titan complex in Moses Lake, and the Yahoo, Intuit, and Microsoft data centers in Quincy.

And yet, despite its numerous advantages, hydropower remains vastly underutilized. While hydro meets 72 percent of Washington state’s total electricity needs, nationwide, that number is only 7 percent.

Furthermore, according to the National Hydropower Association, simply increasing the capacity at existing dams could create 700,000 new jobs. Again, that’s without building a single new dam.

As the founder of the Congressional Hydropower Caucus, I’ve been working to spread the great news about hydropower. And I’m excited to announce a new bipartisan bill with Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) to expand domestic hydropower production. Our bill, H.R. 3680, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act, would facilitate the development of hydropower and conduit projects through several common-sense reforms.

First, we would exempt small hydropower and conduit

8

projects (those generating under 5 megawatts of electricity) from the regulatory process completely. Next, we would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the option to exempt hydro and conduit projects generating 5–40 megawatts from the permitting process. Too often, hydropower and conduit projects get caught up in the permitting process, harming the irrigation districts that rely upon them. By expediting the permitting process in a way that establishes parity between the public and private sectors, and between federal and nonfederal agencies, we can unleash the enormous potential of American hydropower, greatly benefiting irrigation districts throughout the nation.

Rep. DeGette and I are going to push hard on this legislation because it will create jobs and ensure America’s competitive advantage in the energy sector. Hydropower has the capacity to meet our nation’s growing energy needs, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, bolster irrigation, and put Americans back to work.

It’s time to say yes to American hydropower. And that’s precisely what our bill does. I look forward to working with America’s irrigation districts to get the bill passed through Congress and signed into law.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and founder of the Congressional Hydropower Caucus.

Irrigation Leader

A Path Forward for Development of LowHead Hydropower by Irrigation Districts

By Gary Esslinger

M

ore than two years ago, Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) launched an effort to install its own low-head hydropower turbines on a check structure. We wanted to bring this important source of renewable power to southern New Mexico and knew the revenue we brought in would go a long way toward helping us keep landowner assessments low while still maintaining our aging infrastructure.

After some back and forth with commercial manufacturers, we realized a ready-made solution would be too expensive for our budget. Undeterred, EBID’s engineering team embraced a plan to design our own turbines in-house.

Little did we know that engineering a cost-effective low-head hydropower turbine would be the easiest part of the process. Shortly after coming up with an initial design, we discovered that we could not connect our generator to nearby transmission lines without a go-ahead from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

I know FERC as a licensor of large hydroelectric dams—the ones with turbines bigger than my house and dramatic spillways tourists like to photograph. Why would FERC be interested in our little check structure?

It is already off-river and on a site that has been there so long that we left the old structure in place for historical appreciation purposes when the district modernized a few years back.

I knew there was no need for FERC to be involved, and I set out to tell people just that. After testifying twice before Congress, scheduling countless meetings with officials from every relevant federal agency, and still having EBID’s FERC application rejected, I began to realize a broader effort was necessary.

My hope is that the newly formed Low-Head Hydropower Working Group is the answer EBID and other irrigation districts across the West need to collectively work with FERC, Reclamation, and Congress to streamline the regulatory hurdles in place.

Many districts have the same potential to develop this important source of renewable energy that can both help reduce reliance on fossil fuels in rural areas and provide a

Irrigation Leader

supplementary source of income.

Additionally, some are beginning to cope with speculators who file claims to sites with identified lowhead potential. Districts are then forced to make claims with FERC just to assert their superior right to develop a site—an expensive burden considering the large number of sites that may be able to produce power in a cost-effective manner.

Bipartisan measures like the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act (H.R. 3680) introduced by Reps. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) and Diana DeGette (DCO) are essential to our effort. This bill would ensure that small projects like EBID’s—those generating less than 5 megawatts—are not subject to the same onerous requirements as larger structures. Additionally, it would provide an avenue for FERC to similarly exempt slightly larger projects, which could provide additional benefits to irrigation districts across the West.

The Low-Head Hydropower Working Group will provide each district that joins the opportunity to leverage its resources toward a combined effort to achieve federal policy improvements. I personally raised the importance of low-head hydropower to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor during a recent meeting in El Paso, Texas. Both were generally supportive of an increase in low-head hydropower development. The group hopes to expand upon these efforts by working collectively with FERC, Reclamation, and Congress to develop solutions that will allow for a more simplified development process that ensures this important resource positively contributes to the future of rural America.

Gary Esslinger is the treasurermanager of Elephant Butte Irrigation District in Las Cruces, New Mexico. For more information on the Low-Head Hydropower Working Group, contact him directly by phone at (575) 526-6671, or by e-mail at gesslinger@ebid-nm.org

9

From the Bureau of Reclamation Connor Outlines Challenges, Successes From 2011 While Looking to Future

B

ureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor has given speeches at several recent waterrelated events in the West. At these meetings, Commissioner Connor has focused on some key issues including the federal budget outlook, the economic value of Reclamation infrastructure investments, river restoration activities, basin studies, and other topics. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided Irrigation Leader with this collection of excerpts.

President Obama’s Engagement With Reclamation

“I had the extreme pleasure to meet with the President . . . in September. Of all the things that I could meet with the President about: of serious issues that exist in California, or maybe some opportunities that we’re looking to get done in the area of Indian water rights settlements, stuff that the White House has been interested in, the 15 minutes I spent with the President was part of an overall hour-long meeting about efficiency in government, about improving the way we do business.

“It was a small dialogue with about 10 political appointees that he’s having with various meetings. It was just a very eye-opening discussion. He was very engaged on this very subject. It was very substantive, the discussion we had. I can tell you if I’m getting to spend time with the President on this particular issue, it indicates his seriousness overall with respect to the administration.”

(National Water Resources Association, November 17, Tucson, Arizona)

The Federal Budget Picture for Reclamation

“We’ve got to do our share to improve how we do business, to do it more efficiently, to do it in a more financially responsible manner, and to be dynamic with respect to reassessing our programs and highlighting where changes are necessary as part of the organizational changes we need to be doing to meet these tight budget times. . . .

With respect to the 2013 budget, we are reviewing, and we’re evaluating a number of the programs that we have.

We’re looking at cost shares, quite frankly. We’re looking at reinvestment of revenue streams that come in as a result of Reclamation projects. We’re looking at cost allocations.”

(National Water Resources Association, November 17, Tucson, Arizona)

10

“It’s no secret that, in the debate surrounding deficits and federal resources, it’s centered right now upon the economy and what we need to be doing, what’s the proper approach. The debate, from a broad perspective, if you even take it out of just pure politics, there’s an economic debate about whether more federal investment is needed or whether deficit control is the optimum way to try and help continue the slow recovery the economy has had.

“You can look at our 2012 budget, relative to 2011 . . . and you can just identify that it’s a changed environment, overall.

“With respect to 2011, when I came in we were in the midst of trying to identify the best projects and make the best investments of $950 million of Recovery Act money that had been allocated to the Bureau of Reclamation, and we think we did a very good job.

“We’ve been effective in identifying the need for further investment on top of the Recovery Act when we were putting together the 2011 budget. . . . “[Reclamation] investments have value. . . . The core mission has certainly a large economic impact, a positive impact, and we have new needs out there that will have further economic benefits.

“We are looking internally [and] are becoming much more efficient. [We] are looking to reduce our administrative costs. . . . We want to take the resources that we have and get more of it out on the ground.”

(Oregon Water Resources Congress, November 30, Hood River, Oregon) “It’s been quite a dramatic change from when I came in 2009. At that point in time we had a pretty significant robust appropriations bill. We had $950 million of Recovery Act money that we were charged, we the Bureau of Reclamation, with investing.

“The challenge then was how do we expend this money in the best manner possible to stimulate shortterm economic activity but lay a foundation for sound investment for meeting those future challenges?

“In 2010, we started to see more attention to deficit reduction. At that point in time, we were building our 2012 budget. We went from a 2011 budget where the Bureau of Reclamation was at a historic high, was the first presidential budget for Reclamation that exceeded $1 billion, $1.015 billion in net discretionary budget authority.

Irrigation Leader

Commissioner Mike Connor, at the end of the table, works with President Barack Obama and other national leaders at a meeting at the White House in September.

“In 2012 when we prepared the budget and rolled that out, we had to take a 5 percent reduction in the President’s budget as part of the overall government-wide effort to address the deficit situation. I viewed that as a pretty good situation to be in, quite frankly. Many agencies had taken a double-digit reduction from their previous year’s level. We held our reduction to about 5 percent.

“So we felt pretty good about our 2012 budget. But we are two and a half months into fiscal year 2012 and we have yet to have an appropriations package so that we could start making the investments we need to do and continue on with a lot of the construction activity and implementation actions that we need to take.

“We have worked very hard in Reclamation and with great support from Anne [Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Anne Castle], with great support from the Secretary [Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar], in really trying to walk that balance of advocating for the importance of Reclamation’s projects and programs, importance to the overall western economy, the potential impacts of us not being able to move forward on some Irrigation Leader

of the activity that people expect us to do, the backlog of projects and actions that we need to be taking to continue to deliver water to generate power.

“As I mentioned, our 2012 budget from the administration was $965 million, which I thought was pretty good. It looks like [in] the overall package that’s going to be passed [by Congress] today, we’re going to end up with $995 million . . . in overall net discretionary budget authorities.

“That’s not something that we do in isolation. Our successes are not because of what we do, it’s because what we do in partnership with all of you. We have a broadbased agenda that is focused on short-term needs, taking care of our infrastructure, meeting our commitments to tribes, taking care of the environment, and then looking down the road 10, 20, or 50 years to ensure that we’re doing what we can to meet the future water supply challenges.”

(Colorado River Water Users Association, December 16, Las Vegas, Nevada) 11

Basin Studies

“The basin study [program] . . . is very important. It’s a forward-looking program and I think what we look at, at the Bureau of Reclamation, is we need to take care of today’s needs. We need to operate those projects, but we’ve got to constantly have our eye on the future. We very much think it’s a part of our role to partner up with you and be able to foresee the challenges that we have, particularly with respect to the Colorado River Basin. The supply and demand imbalance that we see, even now, but it’s going to be exacerbated [by climate change] in the future. “[We hope to develop] a report that’s robust . . . that lays a path for how we can address some of the supply and demand imbalance that we see [potentially occurring] over time.”

(Colorado River Water Users Association, December 16, Las Vegas, Nevada)

Economic Value

“[I acknowledge] there are certainly issues that have existed over time with respect to federal investments and whether or not we’ve accounted for all of the certain costs of investments as we’ve developed our water resources. I certainly wouldn’t presume to not recognize that there have been issues. I think ignoring how we built this country and the ongoing benefits that exist because of the Reclamation program is simply elevating simplistic sound bites over sound analysis, and in every opportunity, I want to rebut that. I think there’s too much of that that goes on in Washington, DC, and I think it does a disservice to a lot of the good works and the programs and the ongoing benefits that exist from federal investments.

“I feel it’s incumbent upon me to continually stress the investments, that the investments in the Reclamation program have value, both the core mission areas that Reclamation have with respect to water supply and power production, but also as you can well tell over the last decade, Congress has heaped on a lot more with respect to programs and expectations on the Bureau of Reclamation. I think those programs also have value.

“We want to stress the value of those investments, both in the short term and in the long term. We want to continue to educate folks in Washington, DC, that the cuts being proposed in some places for our programs, and I know there’s a difference of view point in the House and the Senate and where we are with respect to our 2012 appropriations, those cuts have impacts. We need to just be blunt about where it is that we won’t get to some of the expectations that people have with the Bureau of Reclamation assisting in water development and ecosystem restoration and helping to plan for the future challenges that are going to be faced in water resources management.

“We did an economic report from the department’s perspective back in December of 2009. That was updated

12

just recently in June of 2011, and it demonstrated that the value of the water, energy, and recreation opportunities provided by the Bureau of Reclamation annually, that projects out to about $19.6 billion per year. That’s just the core, the raw value of those commodities and those services.

“That activity and those programs support overall, though, about $55 billion in economic activity and sustain, create, or overall support 416,000 jobs per year. I think that’s a pretty outstanding record for an agency that exists on about $1 billion of appropriations per year.”

(National Water Resources Association, November 17, Tucson, Arizona)

River Restoration

“[Federal Columbia River Power System] issues . . . have been ongoing and constant. It continues to be an area of focus . . . not just [for]Reclamation but the administration as a whole, given the number of federal agencies up here who have involvement in the operation of the power system and water supply deliveries here in the Columbia River Basin.

“I think it’s amazing the accomplishments that have been had over the last six, seven years. [Since 2005] we’ve acquired and allocated 260,000 acre-feet of water for in stream flows. We’ve improved 5,700 acres of riparian habitat. We’ve made accessible 1,360 miles of salmon and steelhead habitat. And we’ve improved, replaced, or built 220 fish screens.

“That’s the core foundation of what we’re trying to do through these biological opinions and the actions that are needed to address the impacts on endangered species. I think those are a testament to what we need to be doing for the resource here.

“But it’s beyond liking fish. It’s beyond looking at that resource in isolation. That is the key for us to ultimately continue to generate power and deliver water in the manner and with the level of certainty that you all need and that we need, and that other entities need overall and for the long term. We’ve got to deal with these issues. I think the program that we have in place right now is effectively dealing with those issues.”

(Oregon Water Resources Congress, November 30, Hood River, Oregon)

Title Transfer

“One of the things I can tell you, with respect to our role is the title transfer program proposals that were developed in the Bush Administration, we think that there’s a large value to that. We think it’s worth moving forward on. That’s something you’re going to see us moving forward engaging you in a dialogue about over the next several months.”

(National Water Resources Association, November 17, Tucson, Arizona) Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

2012 Family Farm Alliance

Annual Conference

February 23-24, 2012 Monte Carlo Resort & Casino Las Vegas, Nevada Rooms $ just 55

per Night!!!

The 24th Annual Conference of the Family Farm Alliance will once again take place in the West’s most glamorous town — Las Vegas!

This year’s conference will bring together agricultural and conservation leaders from across the country to discuss policy, programs, and economic factors that will shape the future of the agricultural landscape and rural regions in the 21st Century. Panel discussions will focus on the Farm Bill, long-term domestic agricultural water policy, new Clean Water Act implications for farmers and ranchers, and opportunities for low-head hydropower development. The Bureau of Reclamation’s five regional directors and Commissioner Michael Connor will all participate in the general session on February 24, and a workshop will allow Reclamation leaders to discuss proposed changes to the Reclamation Policy Manual with audience members. A tour of the massive Lake Mead intake project being constructed by Southern Nevada Water Authority will take place on the afternoon of the 24th for interested conference attendees.

Registration available online at www.familyfarmalliance.org

Viability of Central Arizona Agriculture Depends on Continued Availability of Affordable Power

By David Modeer

A

s the largest consumer of electricity in Arizona, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) is dependent on a reliable power source in order to deliver the 1.6 million acre-feet of water it diverts from the Colorado River each year. However, CAP’s continued ability to deliver water to Central Arizona irrigators at an affordable price is in jeopardy.

In a forthcoming regulatory review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is likely to impose new emissions requirements on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS), which provides about 95 percent of CAP’s power. Should EPA's ruling require the expenditure of capital in excess of the plant’s ability to operate economically, the owners of NGS may decide to shut down the plant. As a result, power costs paid directly by agricultural users of CAP water would likely increase 200–400 percent, as there is no economical alternative power source available.

Additionally, even minimal new emissions requirements that stop short of causing a plant closure would result in a 10–20 percent increase in agricultural water use assessments—an additional $16 per acre-foot based on the current charge of $50. Economic analysis suggests that any increase greater than $5 per acre-foot would make CAP water unaffordable for area agriculture.

The impact of water rate increases would be twofold.

First, irrigators without an available alternative would

likely be forced out of business, financially ruining them and eliminating many of the benefits that would otherwise result from the federal government’s 20-year, $4 billion investment in CAP construction. Second, those with access to affordable ground water would once again begin to deplete the aquifer and would no longer defer exercising their ground water rights in exchange for CAP water. As Colorado River water availability declines, these ground water rights have become a critical component of CAP’s strategy for storing water to be used during times of shortage on the Colorado River. Coupled with a lack of sufficient man-made storage capacity in the region, the inability to obtain maximum use of the aquifer would endanger even nonagricultural users. Arizona also may be unable to make maximum use of its Colorado River entitlement.

Depending on the extent of NGS plant improvements that EPA requires, more than $1 billion could be necessary to overhaul one of the largest power facilities in the country. CAP and the Bureau of Reclamation, which holds entitlement to a share of NGS generation capacity for the benefit of CAP, will not be the only decision makers at the table. The owners of the remaining NGS generation capacity are electric utilities that are more likely to base their decisions solely on the financial viability of their own investments, not on the impact to the surrounding agricultural community.

Agricultural water users receive greater than 50 percent of the water CAP diverts from the Colorado River, making them particularly important to the project and a critical element to its success over time. Yet CAP is concerned that EPA is not considering the significant impact of its decision on irrigators who rely on Colorado River water, as well as the ancillary effects on the project’s ability to store water in preparation for future shortages.

It is essential that the practical and financial effects of any required improvements to NGS be considered.

Putting area irrigators out of business is a particularly loathsome proposition as our national economy continues to struggle, and would squander the substantial investment made to develop CAP. David Modeer is the general manager of the Central Arizona Project in Phoenix, Arizona. For more information on CAP, visit its website at www.cap-az.com.

14

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Diamond Plastics PVC Pipe Helping Irrigation Districts

Save Water

Gasketed PVC Pipe: • 2” Diameters thru 60” Diameters • Bottle Tight Joints • Easy Push Together Installation • Large Internal Diameter • Smooth High Flow Rate Interior • Practically Maintenance Free • Corrosion Free PVC = Long Life • The Sustainable Solution

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

“We have sold pipe to irrigation districts in each of the 17 western Reclamation states.

Our pipe has helped a lot of folks save a lot of water and cut their operation and maintenance costs. We would like to work with you and your board too.”

Dennis Bauer, Vice President of Sales and Marketing

Washington Farm Bureau Supports Diverse Agricultural Interests With Grassroots Approach

By Mike LaPlant

W

hen I assumed the presidency of the Washington Farm Bureau (WFB) in November, we had just over 42,000 members­—a fivefold increase from our membership of just 7,000 nearly 17 years ago. This increased membership will prove to be the backbone of the initiatives we hope to undertake during my one-year term.

Farm Bureau is one of the truly grassroots organizations in America. Policy decisions begin at the county level, filter to the state level, and can ultimately make it to the national level.

Each year, WFB goes through its policy book one policy at a time over the course of a full day, ensuring we remain committed to the measures that matter most to our state’s farmers.

WFB represents a particularly diverse state, given the differing climates in the eastern and western parts of Washington. Farms range from irrigated acreage in the east to areas in the west where irrigation is not necessary.

Additionally, some members operate thousands of acres, while others may farm just 10 acres to sell at roadside stands.

While all of these groups do not share everything in common, our diversity is an asset as we approach policymakers at both the state and federal levels. WFB is able to show that it truly has the concerns of all farmers at heart, not simply those in a unique subset. Furthermore, we are frequently able to pool resources with commodity groups that have their own organizations in order to help amplify our message.

Irrigation Leader

Currently, WFB’s top priority is kicking off its legal foundation.

The foundation is intended to help farmers with current court actions, enabling WFB to both benefit the individual farmer and set a positive precedent for cases that may be brought in the future. The first case is actually a water rights issue in which a farmer was told by the Washington State Department of Ecology that he had to fence off a creek on his land so his cows would not roam into it. He initiated the legal challenge to the administrative ruling and won at the trial level, where the court indicated the state action constituted a “taking” of his land. The legal foundation will be used to support the farmer as the case moves to the appellate level.

In addition to the legal foundation, WFB will continue to focus on ongoing concerns related to the state’s current budget shortfall. With about $2 billion necessary to balance the budget in the short term, some are trying to make up the difference with new taxes and fees imposed specifically on farmers. WFB is working to combat this counterproductive proposal.

Mike LaPlant is the president of the Washington Farm Bureau and a member of the board of directors for the Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District in Quincy, Washington. For more information about the Washington Farm Bureau, visit its website at www.wsfb.com.

17

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Reclamation Continues Research Efforts to Combat Invasive Mussel Species

A

s concerns about the potential effects of invasive quagga and zebra mussels on western water infrastructure continue to rise, Reclamation is in the midst of a more than three-year effort to identify potential measures to mitigate their impact. Specifically, researchers at the Technical Service Center in Denver, Colorado, are working with manufacturers of foul-release coatings to identify preventive measures that can be taken.

For years, silicone foul-release coatings have been used by ship owners to prevent unwanted fouling to the hulls of their vessels. However, application of these coatings to water delivery infrastructure is only in the formative stages. “The [Army Corps of Engineers] has used foul-release coatings on a few trash racks in Missouri,” said Allen Skaja, a Reclamation chemist, noting that other water infrastructure applications have largely been limited to the research phase.

Thus far, Reclamation has tested silicone foul-release coatings produced by four different manufacturers. “They all worked and performed about the same,” said Skaja. “Of course, there are other companies we have not tested that have very similar products.”

The goal of the foul-release coatings is to reduce the amount of force necessary to remove mussels that attach to water delivery infrastructure. Generally, it would take 1.4 lbs of force to remove a mussel from an epoxy coating. However, when using a silicone foul-release coating, it takes less than 0.05 lbs of force, making the mussels much easier to remove.

Despite these potential benefits, there are disadvantages to the current line of coatings. Specifically, silicone foulrelease coatings are soft in nature, making it difficult for them to hold up against scraping or gouging. Skaja indicated that it is not yet clear how long the coatings will last, particularly if installed in areas where there is a lot of debris in the water, but that the life expectancy when used on ships is estimated to be 5–10 years.

Furthermore, application may be difficult for first-time users. Reclamation anticipates that coating manufacturers

will work closely with those who apply their products.

“Unless contractors are in ship rehabilitation, they probably have not applied these types of coatings,” Skaja said.

While the cost of a conventional epoxy coating generally averages about $70 per gallon, silicone foul-release coatings can be nearly $300 per gallon. Yet Skaja indicated that the long-term cost savings of the foul-release coatings must also be considered. “You have to look at the O&M for maintaining that structure, cleaning it up, sending divers down, and all of that . . . because then it becomes economical,” he said.

Reclamation anticipates that its first opportunity to install foul-release coatings will be next year at Parker Dam in California, as part of the rehabilitation of a trash rack structure.

In addition to the research efforts surrounding coatings, Reclamation is exploring other options to limit the impacts of invasive mussels. These methods include ultraviolet light, ballast filters, biocides, and electrical currents. Reclamation is also beginning to examine preventive measures that can be taken to prevent mussel infestation on mechanical controls.

“We’re starting to look into things like that as well, but that is fairly early on in the game,” said Chris Holdren of Reclamation’s Technical Service Center.

Another key component of the anti-invasive mussel arsenal Reclamation hopes to develop involves early detection. Mussels are spread as their microscopic larvae, known as veligers, travel downstream. Detecting veligers prior to the attachment of adult mussels could give water project operators time to take mitigating action.

“The idea behind it is to give our managers a 3–5 year head start to try to deal with mussels if they can,” said Holdren.

For more information on Reclamation’s invasive mussels program, visit its website at www.usbr.gov/mussels.

Allen Skaja, Reclamation chemist, demonstrates ease of mussel release on grates with silicone foul-release coatings.

Uncoated grate completely blocked with Quagga mussels.

20

Grate with silicone foul-release coating resists mussels.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our guys use the HUESKER Canal3® geocomposite liner in our canals and drains. It is a great product, very durable.

We have used Canal3® geocomposites on numerous large and small projects.”

Darvin Fales Secretary – Manager Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District Applications for Capping • Water Containment Erosion Control • Reinforced Embankments

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

Teaching Students the Value of Agriculture, the Need for Irrigation

By Rusty Jardine

O

n Thursday September 29, 2011, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) Board Members Ernie Schank, Eric Olsen, and I participated in Ag Day, sponsored by the Farm Bureau, at E.C. Best Elementary School in Fallon, Nevada. Passersby may have noticed, among other things, the presence of a cow on school grounds as both an invited and welcomed guest!

We introduced inquisitive young minds to a host of agriculture-related topics, including the value of agriculture to our valley, as well as the science that our agriculture constantly demands.

Ernie and I manned TCID’s mobile museum—a tribute to the Newlands Federal Reclamation Project. Students filed in the open door to see photographs depicting the early days of our project, the how and the why we came to be. They saw depictions of horse teams pulling Fresno scrapers, men pushing ore cars filled with rock, and workers laying down as much as 800 tons of material each day as Lahontan Dam grew from the river floor starting in 1911. We told them of the creation of a federal law, the Reclamation Act of 1902, signed by one of our most memorable presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. And what did that act mean in 1902? What does it mean now? It meant the possibility of attaining the “American Dream,” the possibility for people from all walks of life to start homes and families, to establish a way of life and a way of living.

And it still does.

The price paid by Lahontan Valley’s early residents to reclaim the arid lands may never be fully appreciated nor understood. With nothing more that a team of horses and primitive implements, they grubbed and leveled. They endured floods and drought, fire and ice. Many did not make it. Broken financially, perhaps more so emotionally, many of these early residents simply walked away. But those who stayed grew tougher, and they did not let go.

It is upon that legacy, a legacy woven with the threads of tenacity, that the Lahontan Valley thrives today, with its fields under production, its livestock pushing at its fences, its F-18s overhead, and all the people that make it all happen.

Our students asked us, “What is TCID?” We told them that it is a subdivision of government within our state

Irrigation Leader

Rusty Jardine educating students on irrigation.

directed by elected officers; that each officer has a stake in its success, because each is engaged in agricultural production. The students also asked, “Why are you here?”

We told them that we are part of the reason people came here in the first place—to help make things grow. We further explained that TCID wants to keep people here growing things in the future, through the fullest use and enjoyment of their properties, including their right to the use of Project water.

To all of you engaged in agricultural production, thank you! You remain the hardest of workers in our society. I have seen you in action. I have stood in your dairies and walked with you in your fields. I know that few could keep pace with you. I know that few understand or appreciate the demands placed upon you—physical, economic, and regulatory. I admire your effort, planning, wisdom, and tenacity. I listen to you, and governments everywhere would do well to listen as well.

A word of caution: I asked the students, our future community leaders, many whom we trust will engage in the practice of agriculture some day, “How many of you swim in Project canals?” Many of the students raised their hands. Please, remind children that is it not safe to swim in Project waterways and play on Project works. We should teach those who will next command our Project to preserve its legacy of safety.

Rusty Jardine is the project manager and general counsel of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Fallon, Nevada. He may be contacted by phoning (775) 423-2141.

23

ADVERTISEMENT

Tom Matheson, owner, AquaLastic®. Over 40 years in business.

Introducing! New AquaLastic®LSM 500K Made in America, AquaLastic®LSM 500K is unbeatable -­‐ anywhere in the world.

Even the original AquaLastic®, with a proven 867% elongation and 3400 psi tensile strength, was as yet unmatched. But now, Tom’s team just took it off the map -­‐ with LSM 500K!

The New AquaLastic®LSM 500K means many years of faultless rehabilitation of concrete and metal canals and wooden and tin flumes using the AquaLastic®Canal Repair System.

AquaLastic®LMX is so flexible, yet so strong, that more than 500,000 stretches to more than twice its length on an elongation cycle machine could not break it.

Tom Matheson: “ We are a team of real people striving to bring truly excellent solutions to irrigation. I believe AquaLastic®LSM 500K will solve so many problems and takes canal and flume rehabilitation to the next level.”

Special thanks to our development partner, SPI AquaLastic® has 8 million feet of canal history with 12+ years of application experience. References are available. www.fixcanal.com

CALL 949 394 4228

Irrigation Leader

25

District Focus 26

GROWING A LOCAL ECONOMY

Through Irrigation Development

By Scott Revell

A

s far back as the 1920s, federal and state water planners envisioned running irrigation water to Washington state’s Red Mountain American Viticultural Area (AVA). However, successive attempts were refuted until 2010, when work began to evaluate and design an in-river pump station intended to provide Yakima River water to 2,000 additional acres.

While about 500 acres of the Red Mountain AVA are currently used for growing wine grapes using a local ground water supply, the remainder of the region is vacant shrub-steppe desert. However, vintners have long sought further use of the land given the area’s favorable microclimate, which allows them to stress the grapes as much as possible when combined with highly efficient drip irrigation systems.

In recent years, the Red Mountain AVA has been recognized as a producer of high-quality red wines that can range from $35 to $125 a bottle. Additionally, growers who sell their grapes to other producers generally yield $2,650 to $3,600 per ton, with an average of 4 tons per range.

As contemplated, the new system will provide 1.5 acre-feet of river water annually to Red Mountain AVA growers. The project will consist of a pressurized and metered system using approximately 80,000 linear feet pipe to convey Yakima River water one-half mile from the new Kiona pumping station. Construction is expected to begin by the end of 2012, but the project must still undergo review and permitting procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Currently, the project is estimated to cost $14.9 million. Area growers will be assessed for a portion of the project costs annually over a 25-year payback period. However, this cost pales in comparison to the $25–$50 million projected annual production revenue. Current estimates completed by the Washington State’s Department of Ecology also indicate that the project will create 103 new jobs.

In addition, many growers could open public wineries, increasing tourism in the region. The broader Red Mountain AVA development plan contemplates the creation of new vineyards, as well as construction of a wine village.

The project also incorporates environmental benefits. Specifically, Kennewick Irrigation District (KID) will move part of its water right from its current diversion structure to the new pumping station. The Department of Ecology anticipates that this move will result in increased in-stream flows to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Yakima River. Additionally, KID and Washington state will each contribute $500,000 toward the mitigation of shrub-steppe losses in the project area.

Scott Revell is the planning manager for the Kennewick Irrigation District in Kennewick, Washington. For more information on KID, visit its website at www.kid.org.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Water Law

COMPLIANCE or Else

28

By Timothy Sandefur

M

ichael and Chantelle Sackett bought twothirds of an acre of Idaho property in 2005, intending to build a new family home. What they got instead was a lesson in the arbitrary power of federal administrative agencies—one that has taken them all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

After patiently obtaining all necessary permits, they began adding fill material to the site to prepare for laying a foundation. That’s when an envelope arrived from the Environmental Protection Agency, containing a compliance order that informed the Sacketts that their land was a federal “wetland,” and that their construction was in violation of the Clean Water Act. The order instructed them to tear out what they had built, plant native shrubbery, and fence off their property for three years. They were given a five-month deadline, after which they would be fined more than $37,500 per day.

The Sacketts were floored. They had had no reason to think their property was a wetland. Yet when they requested a hearing to challenge the EPA’s assertion that their land was subject to federal control, the agency refused. The Clean Water Act, it said, gives property owners no right to a hearing; instead, the Sacketts would have to wait for the EPA to file an enforcement action if and when it chose. Only then could they argue that the agency wrongly asserted authority over their property.

Until then, the $37,500 per day toll would continue to run, possibly rising to millions of dollars, and their failure to comply might also be used later as proof of “willfulness” and the basis of criminal prosecution. Thus, the Sacketts faced a devastating choice: obey the order at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and give up their dream of building a home—or ignore it and play chicken with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Represented by attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Sacketts filed their own lawsuit, arguing that the law did entitle them to a hearing—and if not, that the compliance order scheme violated their constitutional right to due process of law.

Their case was very similar to a 2003 decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a similar compliance order mechanism in the Clean Air Act on the grounds that although the orders are “injunction-like” and “lead[] to a host of severe penalties,” they are issued unilaterally by a single official, without considering a property owner’s side of the story.

This made the EPA “the ultimate arbiter of guilt or innocence,” and thus “violate[d] the Due Process Clause and the separation-of-powers principle.”

But other judges rejected that ruling. In 1995, another Court of Appeals ruled that compliance orders did not give a person a right to a hearing, because that “would undermine the EPA’s regulatory authority.” The Sixth and Fourth Circuits also rejected any right to judicial review, because “Congress intended to allow EPA to act to address environmental problems quickly and without becoming immediately entangled in litigation.”

Following these precedents, the Idaho federal court dismissed the Sacketts’ lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. A compliance order, it held, was really only a warning, without the kind of legal force that gives rise to due process concerns. After all, the Sacketts aren’t required to actually pay the fine until the agency files an enforcement action, at which time they “will have a full and fair opportunity to raise challenges to the validity of the order.” The fact that, while the Sacketts wait, the penalties for noncompliance continue to compound, “could indeed create a due process problem,” the judges acknowledged. But they went on to reject the “literal” language of the act, and declared that only compliance orders that are ultimately upheld in the enforcement proceeding can serve as the basis for liability.

Under this retailoring of the law, the EPA cannot punish a person without going through the regular judicial proceedings to prove that he or she acted illegally.

But not all courts agree, and even if it is correct, this ruling does not protect the Sacketts’ due process rights, because it still requires them to risk devastating penalties before having their day in court. As far back as 1908, the Supreme Court held that due process of law is violated if a statute imposes “penalties for disobedience” that are “so enormous . . . as to intimidate” a person “from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation.”

However one characterizes compliance orders, they are a terrifying example of the power administrative agencies wield, often without meaningful oversight by elected officials. Rarely can a modest property owner who receives such an order undertake a David-andGoliath faceoff with the EPA, with its $10 billion annual budget and 17,000 employees. Yet the EPA regards its power to intimidate as central to its mission: the power to issue compliance orders without oversight, say the agency’s lawyers, “ensure[s] that the agency [can] act quickly to address environmental problems, without being entangled in defensive litigation.” Such an attitude ought to raise the eyebrows of judges concerned with fairness. What the EPA calls flexibility is, in reality, a menacing power over ordinary citizens. The agency issues over 1,000 compliance orders each year, without Irrigation Leader

public oversight, and property owners are given no notice or opportunity to be heard. The Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes allow individual bureaucrats to issue orders on the basis of “any information”—which, as courts have admitted, “presumably includes a staff report, newspaper clipping, anonymous phone tip, or anything else,” and is thus “less rigorous than the probable cause standard.”

Yet rather than applying a skeptical eye to administrative agencies, courts in the past have usually deferred to their judgment. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Sacketts’ case, there is hope of imposing some concept of checks and balances on the EPA. Administrative convenience should not be an excuse for dispensing with basic principles of the rule of law.

Timothy Sandefur is a principal attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Mr. Sandefur may be contacted by phoning (916) 419-7111 or by e-mail at TSandefur@pacificlegal.org. For more information on the Pacific Legal Foundation, please see its website at www.pacificlegal.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

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

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

(575) 526-2101 Fax (575) 526-2506 Email:

slh@lclaw-nm.com

The Innovators

Tractor-Powered Pump Moves Water Quickly, Economically

I

Dyna-Flo pumps capable of pumping 3,000 gallons/minute.

Integral axle and wheels permit easy transport and direction of the Dyna-Flo.

Dual outlets direct water as a PTO shaft transfers power to the pump.

A pivoting hitch mount allows the Dyna-Flo to operate on various slopes.

30

n a year of heavy flooding, agriculture and municipalities can easily appreciate the value of being able to dewater inundated areas. Created from years of experience in the irrigation and dewatering industry, the Dyna-Flo pump offers efficient and economical high-volume water movement.

The Dyna-Flo pump is manufactured by Dyna-Flo Incorporated, a subsidiary of General Irrigation and Dewatering, located in Oakes, North Dakota. Both companies are operated by President and Owner Dana Rosendahl, and his son, Vice-President Ryan Rosendahl. Dana has been with General Irrigation and Dewatering for 30 years, having started out as an employee. Ryan joined the business five years ago.

General Irrigation and Dewatering employs eight people besides the Rosendahls, and the ability to employ those people is attributable to the success of the Dyna-Flo pump.

Requests for an economical means to dewater flooded fields and low-lying areas led Dana Rosendahl to design the Dyna-Flo. “We were frequently asked for a way to move a lot of water efficiently and at a reasonable price,” said Ryan. The Dyna-Flo can transport 3,000 gallons per minute at a pressure of 7–8 pounds per square inch, at only 1,000 revolutions per minute.

Fabricated in-house, the Dyna-Flo moves water by means of a PTO-driven steel impeller positioned in the end of a 12-inch pipe.

On the other end of the tube are dual 45-degree outlets that can be connected to additional piping for water placement and direction. The unit can be transported with an integral hitch and wheels. The hitch, located at the outlet end, pivots vertically, allowing various angles of operation.

Unique to the Dyna-Flo is its ability to function in shallow water, thanks to of a specially designed attachment. The bottom feeder attachment mounts on the intake end and allows for full-volume pumping in depths of 6–8 inches. The Dyna-Flo is the only pump of its kind on the market capable of operating in such shallow depths.

Sales of the Dyna-Flo have grown in the four years it has been on the market. Several dealers now distribute units, with sales ranging across the Midwest and Canada. Further, the Dyna-Flo can be used in applications beyond agriculture. For example, General Irrigation and Dewatering lent two Dyna-Flo pumps to the town of Cogswell, North Dakota, in April 2011. The Dyna-Flo pumps were used to pump water across a highway to prevent the town from flooding.

While the Dyna-Flo pump is currently Dyna-Flo Incorporated’s sole product, additional pump designs are on the drawing board. The company is working on a high-pressure version of the Dyna-Flo, capable of running a pivot and watering high grounds. An electric lift pump for drain tiles is also under construction.

As long as flooding continues to be an issue, the ability to move water in a timely and cost-effective manner will be critical. The Dyna-Flo pump by Dyna-Flo Incorporated provides that ability to agriculture and beyond.

Irrigation Leader

Rich Gargan, IWS founder, standing by newly installed screen.

Water Screens Built in California Farming Community Thrive in International Marketplace

M

ore than eight years ago, Rich Gargan launched International Water Screens (IWS) in Shafter, California, using a proven design originally constructed by area farmers and refined over three decades.

In that time, the business has grown to sell screens across the globe for a variety of purposes.

Previously part of a family agricultural supply business in which he was responsible for a multi-million dollar screen line, Gargan set out on his own in 2003. His company now sells a wide range of custom-built products, including debris-removal screens, fish screens, and, more recently, industrial screens used by sugar cane and pulp mills.

“Nothing is standard,” said Gargan, noting that the largest screen his company has built to date was 12 feet wide and 80 feet long. “Every screen is made for that particular location.”

Today, IWS screens are sold in overseas countries ranging from Canada and Mexico to Australia and Vietnam.

Each screen is built at IWS’s 20,000-square-foot manufacturing facility, which is operated by nine employees.

However, the custom design process begins long before fabrication efforts. IWS first completes engineering of the proposed screen and incorporates changes requested by the customer. Only then does IWS provide a quote and move forward with construction.

“I believe in giving a customer what he wants on a handshake,” said Gargan. “There’s no charge for the back and forth engineering.”

IWS is also heavily involved with the installation of its screens, and Gargan noted that his company performs the installation itself about 90 percent of the time. “If it’s a big project, they might have the whole job go out to bid . . . but if we are not installing, we are supervising the installation,” he said.

The company also ensures that operating staff feel comfortable with the screen and performs on-site training for each customer. “When we go to visit a location, we discuss with the operator what the problems are,” Gargan said. “The last thing an operator wants is someone to say ‘here is a new machine, go operate it.’ ” IWS stays involved with its screens subsequent to installation and regularly takes the lead on long-term maintenance activities. However, Gargan highlighted the durability of IWS products, which include steel chain manufactured in Illinois. “The first screen I ever sold is still in operation,” he said.

Gargan has worked with many of his shop employees for years. “We’re almost like a family,” he said.

Additionally, his son and son-in-law are the sales representatives for the company.

For more information on International Water Screens, visit its website at www.internationalwaterscreens.com.

Irrigation Leader

31

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

2012 CALENDAR

Jan. 11–13

Jan. 24–25 Jan. 25–27 Jan. 30–31 Jan. 31–Feb. 2 Feb. 23–24 Feb. 28–Mar. 1 Mar. 6–8 Mar. 7–9 Mar. 12–14 Mar. 11–14

Mar. 26–28

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

Groundwater Management Districts Assn., Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, Legislative Conference, Lincoln, NE Colorado Water Congress, Annual Convention, Denver, CO California Irrigation Institute, Annual Conference, Sacramento, CA Texas Water Conservation Assn., Texas Water Day, Washington, DC Family Farm Alliance, Annual Meeting and Conference, Las Vegas, NV Assn. of California Water Agencies, Washington Conference, Washington, DC Nevada Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV Texas Water Conservation Assn., Annual Convention, Dallas, TX Utah Water Users Assn., Water Users Workshop, St. George, UT Nebraska Assn. of Resources Districts, Washington Conference, Washington, DC National Water Resources Assn., Federal Water Issues Conference, Washington, DC

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

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

Past issues of Irrigation Leader are archived at www.WaterandPowerReport.com