Irrigation Leaver June 2014

Volume 5 Issue 6

June 2014

CAP and the Water-Energy Nexus: An Interview With David Modeer

Introducing the Irrigation Leader Products & Services Guide

By Kris Polly

S

ince our debut issue of Irrigation Leader magazine in October 2010, we have followed a simple rule with regard to advertising: We only advertise those products and services that are already being used by an irrigation district or waterproviding entity. This simple rule assures our readers that our advertisers offer quality products and services and lends credibility to the magazine. Our readers appreciate this standard, and our advertisers have greatly benefited.

We have learned that it is important for irrigation districts and water-providing entities to know that others are successfully using a product or service they are considering purchasing.

Given the limited advertising space in Irrigation Leader magazine, we have created an online Irrigation Leader Products & Services Guide to specifically provide additional space for advertisers. You will find this guide posted on our website at www.WaterAndPowerReport.com. Each listing in the guide allows advertisers space to provide a brief summary of their product or service and, most importantly, a list of those irrigation districts and waterproviding entities with whom they have done business.

It is important to note that those entities listed do not

necessarily recommend or endorse the advertiser, but they do represent points of contact that can, if contacted, share their experience with the product or service.

“This whole business runs on gossip,” Tom Davis, general manager of the Yuma County Water Users Association once told me. By that, he meant that the irrigation and water-providing business is a close-knit group of people who rely heavily on the opinions and recommendations of their peers. That has certainly been my observation from working western water issues for over 20 years. The Irrigation Leader Products & Services Guide provides an easily accessible, visual listing of those products and services that are used by irrigation districts and waterproviding entities today. Please review the new guide. We hope you will find it useful.

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

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

2

Irrigation Leader

JUNE 2014

C O N T E N T S 2 Introducing the Irrigation Leader Products & Services Guide

Volume 5

Issue 6

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

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

By Kris Polly

4 CAP and the Water-Energy Nexus: An Interview With David Modeer

10 Working to Protect State-Granted Water Rights: An Interview With Congressman Paul Gosar

14 The Challenge of NPDES Permits for Herbicide Applications

By Kacie Thrift

DISTRICT FOCUS 16 Maricopa Water District

By Glen Vortherms

MANAGER’S PROFILE

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

22 Mike Urton

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

THE INNOVATORS

COVER: Photo of the Central Arizona Project and Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) General Manager David Modeer.

RECLAMATION PROFILE 24 Deputy Commissioner Jennifer Gimbel

28 XRI: Facilitating Data-Driven Water Management

32 Concrete Cloth: The Fabric of Water Infrastructure

34 Flexible Water Control Solutions: Rubber Dams From Yooil

38 CLASSIFIED LISTINGS

Photos provided by the CAWCD.

Irrigation Leader

3

CAP and the Water-Energy Nexus: An Interview With

David Modeer

I

n Arizona, the delivery of water is inextricably linked to the production of energy. For instance, the growers and residents of central-south Arizona would pay much more for their allotment of Colorado River water without the generation of energy by the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS). Guiding that water delivery—via the monumental Central Arizona Project (CAP)—is David Modeer, who joined the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) as general manager overseeing all CAP operations in January 2009.

David brings a wealth of water management experience to his work. Prior to his arrival at CAP, he had served as director of water services for the City of Phoenix and director of water in Tucson. David also spent 26 years at American Water Works, Inc., in a variety of managerial positions, including vice president of operations for both the Pennsylvania-American and Western Region divisions. David served six years on the publicly elected board of directors of the CAWCD prior to his selection as general manager.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with David about the project’s top issues, the impacts of CAP water on the Arizona economy, and water conservation.

An aerial view of the Central Arizona Project 4

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: For our non-Arizonan readers, please provide a brief description of CAP. David Modeer: CAP was developed decades ago to make use of a large part of Arizona’s apportionment of Colorado River water. It was accomplished by congressional action in 1968.

Construction began in the 1970s, but stopped for a while when the Carter administration wouldn’t fund it. Another congressional action got it back on track.

The project was completed in 1993, and it now stretches from the Colorado River near Lake Havasu to south of the city of Tucson. We first delivered water in 1985 to some of the agricultural districts west of Phoenix.

It is a large project: 336 miles long, pushing water 3,000 feet uphill and delivering 1.6 million acre-feet per year of Arizona’s 2.8 million acrefoot appointment of the Colorado River. There are 14 pump stations and 50 check stations to control the speed David Modeer at Wilmer Power Plant. at which water flows. CAP has close to 90 wholesale customers—cities, industries, agriculture, and tribes. About agricultural users will lose a majority of their access to 47 percent of our supplies go toward fulfilling Indian Colorado River water . . . and potentially all access in the water rights settlements. Our customer base includes next three to five years depending on when the shortage is 16 irrigation districts. At this time, a majority of our water called. Growers have invested a lot of money in preparing is being utilized by non-Indian agriculture. their fields to meet state efficiency requirements. Loss of CAP water is going to be a burden on agriculture, Kris Polly: What are CAP’s top issues? impacting operations, crop production, and the number of plantings.

David Modeer: Our top issues are significant: environmental regulations as they relate to energy Kris Polly: With respect to the shortage, how will the production. More than 90 percent of our energy is irrigators be impacted—what is the worst-case scenario? supplied by NGS, a coal-fired power plant in the Navajo Nation. It has been under regulatory review for almost David Modeer: In the worst-case scenario, irrigators five years. We are expecting a ruling on best available will be impacted as early as 2017, with a reduction of retrofit technology and regulations on regional haze 300,000 acre-feet off their current utilization (600,000 or issues issued by the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection 700,000 acre-feet of water). Through the Arizona Native Agency]. It will have a significant cost impact on our American water rights settlement agreement, irrigators users, because these regulations will have a significant have an agricultural pool—rights to use 400,000 acre-feet impact on our ability to pump and deliver water. of discounted-rate CAP water each year. The amount of The second major issue is the impending shortage water in the ag pool diminishes over time, until it goes on the Colorado River in 2016 or 2017. If a shortage is away in 2035. A worst-case shortage could eliminate that declared, the first cutbacks will hit non-Indian agriculture. pool completely in the next few years.

If a second-stage shortage on the river is declared, Irrigation Leader

5

Lake Pleasant with New Waddell Dam in the foreground.

Kris Polly: How will NGS impact the price of water for irrigators?

David Modeer: There are several ways. First of all, we have already seen some price increases as part of this regulatory process. NGS owners executed a new contract for cooling water with the federal government last year. That increased the price of water and the cost of electricity. New 25‑year leases with the Navajo Nation were executed last year and are currently impacting prices.

Those costs are passed on to our consumers.

At the end of 2019, the current contracts for the operation of NGS could go away, and the plant would shut down. Three of the owners, along with CAP and the Bureau of Reclamation, have indicated their desire to continue operating the plant. Major users—Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Nevada Energy— will be exiting. At the end of 2019, they will not extend their contracts, which will require shutting down one unit [of the three at the generating station]. This will increase operating costs. The unit price of electricity for remaining users—CAP, Salt River Project, Arizona Public Service Company, and Tucson Electric Power—will go up about 8 percent in 2020. Customers will absorb the increases.

And further price increases will come.

6

If the EPA approves the Technical Workgroup Agreement worked out by a multiple agencies (the Department of the Interior, CAP, the Navajo Nation and the Gila River Indian Community, and the other electrical customers), it will become the framework for the EPA’s rulemaking. Under it, we believe the plant will continue to operate through 2044. Currently, there is a NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process that must be completed in the next three years before the secretary of the interior can approve the new lease. Once that is done, we will make what amounts to a balloon payment with some long-term debt.

Were NGS to close, we anticipate that our energy expense will increase by 200 percent. I am certain that agriculture would be unable to use the more expensive CAP water.

Kris Polly: How many people are employed at the plant, and what is the source of the coal?

David Modeer: At NGS, there are approximately 520 employees; 85 percent of those are Navajo. NGS represents upward of 50 percent of Navajo Nation revenues, both from coal royalties and the taxes paid by owners of the plant. The Hopi Nation has stated that Irrigation Leader

Navajo Generating Station.

it receives about 80 percent of its revenues from NGS operations.

CAP, in conjunction with Arizona State University, did a study that came out in early spring of this year on the economic impacts of CAP. In 2010, the water delivered by CAP was foundational to about 50 percent of Arizona’s gross state product (state-wide economic activity). So the fate of NGS will not just impact water coming out of a faucet or onto a field, but the entire economy of the state.

Kris Polly: Has CAP looked into other alternatives if NGS is decommissioned?

David Modeer: That is a complex question. My quick answer is yes. But the reality of the answer is that there is no replacement for NGS. NGS is a fully capitalized plant; therefore, the cost of the power that it produces is consistently below the market. As part of its agreement with NGS, CAP has rights to much more power than it needs to pump its water. The intent is for CAP, working with the Western Power Administration, to market the excess power.

The revenues generated by that go into our repayment obligation for the construction of the project. CAP normally receives from $23 million to $26 million per Irrigation Leader

year from excess power sales, which is used to offset CAP’s $55 million annual repayment obligation. If NGS closes, CAP would also have to make up that lost revenue.

That’s one reason why any alternative power source will be significantly more expensive.

But we know that there are risks to NGS, and we are engaged internally in a study of alternatives, including renewables, contracts with other power providers, and building our own facilities. We are studying and weighing options in preparation for 2019, and depending on what the regulatory rule is, we’ll see what the other owners are going to do.

Kris Polly: What can you tell us about CAP’s innovative water conservation program?

David Modeer: CAP employs two levels of conservation. The first type arises from working cooperatively with industries, towns, and cities to reduce water use. Arizona uses no more water now than it did in the 1950s, yet the state has more than doubled its population.

And being a wholesaler, CAP is concerned about the longevity and consistency of flows in the Colorado. We are involved with a number of projects and studies to ensure 7

Superstition Mountains groundwater recharge site.

that during periods of drought, we can lessen negative impacts and stem the continuing decline in the levels of Lake Mead. We are doing a pilot study with irrigators in the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District on the economic and crop impacts of fallowing land in order to leave water in Lake Mead. We are also developing plans to leave water in Lake Mead as “intentionally created surplus” through agreements with Nevada and California. All of this is to help maintain higher levels in Lake Mead so it does not fall such that it creates legal actions over operations on the Colorado.

We’re also looking at working with the Bureau of Reclamation to try to operate the Yuma Desalting Plant to save 100,000 acre-feet a year in Lake Mead. The desalting plant has not been operating on a full-time basis since it was built more than 20 years ago. We think that for full-time operation, there will have to be a public-private partnership to upgrade the plant. We are also looking at other desalting activities in groundwater basins where we have large volumes of brackish water. There has been some progress working with other states in stemming the decline in Lake Mead.

Salt River Project turnout and interconnect.

Hassayampa pumping plant.

8

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Working to Protect State-Granted Water Rights:

An Interview With Congressman Paul Gosar

C

ongressman Paul A. Gosar, DDS, is serving his second term in Congress as the representative from Arizona’s Fourth Congressional District. Congressman Gosar is a member of the Natural Resources Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The congressman has been an active voice on water rights issues, including recent proposals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Forest Service, and is a cosponsor of H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. Prior to his election to office in 2010, he owned his own dental practice in Flagstaff for 25 years.

As an advocate for federal policies, legislation, and regulations that promote the protection, management, development, and beneficial use of water resources, the National Water Resources Association (NWRA) has been actively working to address concerns about these recent agency proposals.

NWRA Director of Federal Affairs Ian Lyle and NWRA Intern Harmony Wormwood spoke with the congressman about the proposals, the Water Rights Protection Act, and advocating for Congressman Gosar at a hearing regarding the EPA on Capitol Hill. state-granted water rights.

Congressman Gosar: I think that the proposed rule Ian Lyle: What are the principles that you learned as would expand Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over a small business owner that you apply to your work in nearly all areas with any water connection to downstream Congress? navigable waters, including man-made conveyances such as ditches and stock ponds.

Congressman Gosar: The federal government creates [It is my belief that] this would directly contradict the field in which all of us participate. But, as a business prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which imposed owner, I also understand that the federal government limits on the extent of federal CWA authority. Although impugns us with rules and regulations that become an the agencies have maintained that the rule is narrow expense and an obstacle to providing a good or a service. and clarifies CWA jurisdiction, it in fact aggressively Those costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. expands federal authority under the CWA while bypassing

Congress and creating unnecessary ambiguity. The rule is Ian Lyle: What are your thoughts on the EPA and U.S. based on incomplete scientific and economic analyses.

Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed rule on the definition On June 2, I held a field hearing on the issue in of waters of the United States?

Arizona that was attended by five members of Congress.

10

Irrigation Leader

Ian Lyle: What are your thoughts on the Forest Service’s groundwater management proposal? Should water providers be as concerned about this proposal as they are with the waters of the United States proposal?

areas traditionally regulated by states. This runs contrary to long-standing policy that respects the power of the states to regulate groundwater. The Forest Service claims that surface water and groundwater are “hydraulically interconnected,” and therefore, it will evaluate any state, local, or private water project on adjacent land that could potentially connect with groundwater. Alarmingly, like the waters of the United States proposed rule, this directive was proposed without input from state or local leaders and without any meaningful outreach to water users.

On June 24, 2014, I signed on to a letter with 43 of my colleagues from both the House and Senate to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack warning that the new directive will restrict access of water providers and other Americans to public lands and interfere with state and private water rights. We asked him to withdraw this flawed rule.

This proposal has reinforced our belief that the Forest Service is attempting to override state water laws. While it has not drawn media attention, water providers should be just as concerned about the Forest Service’s groundwater management proposal as they are with the waters of the United States proposal.

Ian Lyle: The Forest Service also recently announced a revised position on its ski area water rights directive. Does this revised position do enough to respect state-granted water rights and private-property rights?

Congressman Gosar: The current draft of the proposed directive would expand federal authority into

Congressman Gosar: Absolutely not. The directive is a very minor patch. Instead of directly requiring transfer

We had a packed house at the state capitol building.

We heard testimony from nine Arizona witnesses who unanimously opposed the proposed rule. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to participate in the hearing. I think they would have learned a lot from hearing from the people on the ground in Arizona. I would encourage them to hold regional listening sessions in the future to ensure that they hear from the citizens that will be most impacted by this flawed rule.

Harmony Wormwood: How do you think this proposal will affect farmers and ranchers in your district?

Congressman Gosar: The rule will dramatically impact ranchers and farmers in my district. Arizona’s unique geography and climate result in floodplains of ephemeral waterways, which provide valuable space for agriculture, livestock, and other economic interests for most of the year. Since waters in a floodplain will be considered adjacent waters in the proposed rule and, therefore, subject to CWA jurisdiction, use of this valuable land may be prohibited.

Congressman Gosar hosted a field hearing on June 2 at the Arizona State Capitol to scrutinize the EPA's proposed rule to expand the definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Irrigation Leader

11

as a condition [of permitting], the Forest Service has employed a nonseverability clause [such that water rights could not be sold separately from other ski area assets]. So, the proposal does remove the argument that forced water rights transfers divest ski areas of an interest against which they can obtain financing to maintain ski runs, build lifts, and upgrade facilities. However, [the proposal] would still be an encumbrance on the right to use water beneficially, which is at odds with state water law.

The Federal Register notice goes to great lengths to protect the notion that the Forest Service has the authority to take water when it wants. This is worrisome because it indicates that the Forest Service doesn’t want to close the door on the possibility of forced transfers in the future.

Ian Lyle: This directive talks about ski area water rights. Do you think that it also has implications for water rights outside of ski areas?

Congressman Gosar: Yes, it will have implications for farmers, ranchers, and irrigated agriculture. The Forest Service retains a policy (in section 2540 in the Forest Service Manual) that pursues U.S. possessory interests in almost all water originating on Forest Service lands.

The new ski area directive is in direct conflict with that policy, and if implemented, the interplay between the two will likely be litigated. With this new position, the Forest Service has feigned cooperation with the ski areas but has left everyone else out to dry.

Ian Lyle: Tell us about the Water Rights Protection Act. Congressman Gosar: It’s a great bill, and I was proud to play an active role in assisting my good friend and colleague, Scott Tipton, in passing this legislation through the House Resources Committee and Water and Power Subcommittee. I was a cosponsor along with 14 other bipartisan colleagues.

The Water Rights Protection Act [H.R. 3189] prevents the federal government from taking privately held water rights without just compensation. It would protect a variety of water users, including rural communities, businesses, recreation opportunities, farmers, and ranchers, as well as other individuals who rely on privately held water rights for their livelihood. It would do so by prohibiting federal agencies from predicating the issuance of permits, leases, and other land management arrangements on the transfer of water rights for which it would otherwise have to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

12

Congressman Gosar investigating the furrows on a Yumaarea farm.

Ian Lyle: Will it help address the groundwater management and ski area proposals?

Congressman Gosar: The ski area proposal represents the fifth policy change on this issue by the Forest Service in 12 years. The Water Rights Protection Act will uphold long-standing federal deference to state water law in these matters.

Ian Lyle: The population of Arizona has grown nearly 12‑fold since the 1950s, but water consumption remains about the same due to collaborative efforts by Arizona water administrators and users. As the demand for water in Arizona and the rest of the West continues to grow, will the EPA and Forest Service proposals make it more difficult to work collaboratively and meet future water needs?

Congressman Gosar: Certainly. Arizona has been at the forefront of water conservation innovation for years.

On the other hand, these agency proposals will tie up precious water resources for municipal and agricultural users and promote frivolous litigation.

Just look at what’s going on in California, where we are having a water crisis. Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits have exacerbated drought conditions. Federal government policies have allowed for more than 300 billion gallons of water to be diverted into the San Francisco Bay just to protect a 3‑inch fish.

This has had a dramatic impact: killing thousands of jobs for ranchers and farmers, harming our food supply, and leading to unemployment levels as high as 40 percent in some California communities. This defies common sense.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

dpcpipe.com I 800.PVC.PIPE

The Challenge of NPDES Permits for Herbicide Applications

By Kacie Thrift

A

quatic vegetation has many negative effects on irrigation districts, including reduced storage capacity in reservoirs, hydroelectric production interference, distorted canals design features, degraded recreational uses, and reduced water quality and wildlife habitat value. Record-high temperatures this year have caused vegetation to grow fast and thick, which can affect water movement throughout a canal.

Like any water project, the Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts, located in eastern Washington State, must deal with aquatic vegetation.

“Pondweeds limit capacity in laterals, while algae buildup can plug screens and pumps,” said East Columbia Basin Irrigation District Water Quality Supervisor Jamie Balliet.

The districts use aquatic herbicides and algaecides to control plants and algae; however, permitting laws regulate the chemicals that can be used and how they can be applied. These guidelines are established by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act. “These guidelines require that any chemical used must be at or below a predefined concentration at a designated point of compliance,” Balliet said. “The State Department of Ecology considers a point of compliance as the location where water treated with pesticides enters surface water bodies that existed prior to creation of reclamation and irrigation projects. To ensure we meet our chemical tolerances at a point of compliance, often times we are required to apply chemicals at a lower rate than the chemical label suggests, lowering efficacy.”

Balliet said the limitations can become problematic on the lower end of laterals near the compliance sites, where dilution and low chemical concentrations reduce herbicidal control.

For the Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts, the NPDES permits are a fairly new limitation. On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that application of an herbicide in compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt an irrigation district from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. This requirement came after the Talent Irrigation District in southern Oregon applied the herbicide Acrolein to an irrigation canal and a leaking waste gate led to a fish kill.

Headwaters Inc. and Oregon Natural Resources Council filed a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the irrigation district for applying the herbicide into a system of irrigation canals. The Ninth Circuit then held a decision that irrigation districts obtain NPDES permits and that irrigation ditches were waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Washington is a regulated state, meaning that the 14

Washington State Department of Ecology has been delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the Clean Water Act and provide NPDES permits to irrigation districts. Each permit lasts for five years and then must be renewed. During the time of renewal, changes can be made to the permit. The Department of Ecology may modify this permit to impose new or modified numerical limitations, if necessary, to meet water quality standards for surface waters, sediment quality standards, or water quality standards for groundwaters, based on new information obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, or departmentapproved engineering reports. The current permits for the three Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts expire in June 2017.

“You have to be careful when you ask for change because it might not always be in your favor,” said Quincy Columbia Basin Irrigation District Water Quality Manager Craig Gyselinck.

“However, if I were to ask for change it would be for more [a bigger variety of ] herbicides. We have a small list of chemistries compared to other state aquatic weed permits.”

Balliet said the districts are limited to herbicide types but are also subject to holding time requirements. He said there has been discussion on wanting to increase holding time allowances—the amount of time the district is allowed to hold a pollutant in the laterals before it reaches a point of compliance.

“There are certain chemicals our permit allows us to use that would be beneficial to the district, but we cannot meet the required holding time. You would need to build storage ponds and stop gates to divert water and impede flow, but that doesn’t financially make sense.”

Although the new permit has created an increase in staff time and aquatic weeds for the districts, the water quality managers do see a bright side. “The permit protects us and shows that we are being environmentally responsible. But it is an ongoing process,” Gyselinck said. “One of the things I worry about with the new permit is that, with the new water quality standards, we might have even stricter limits than we already have.”

Before the new permit is finalized, a comment period will be held. Balliet said changes are possible, but advocating for changes that are advantageous to the districts can become an arduous task.

“We are only allowed to discharge under the guidelines of the current NPDES permit, so we make do with what we have [current guidelines],” Balliet said.

Kacie Thrift writes about issues affecting the Columbia Basin Project. Most recently, she was a reporter and assistant editor for two newspapers in north-central Washington.

She grew up in Entiat, Washington, and is a graduate with honors from Whitworth University with a bachelor of arts in journalism and mass communications.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

District Focus

Maricopa Water District

I

n an era of strained water supplies and revenues, Maricopa Water District (MWD) has embraced enterprises not normally undertaken by irrigation districts. As a result, it has positioned itself to be an important leader in the delivery of water to the farms and residents west of Phoenix for years to come.

MWD delivers surface water and groundwater to 39,000 acres in the western Gila River Valley, along the White Tank Mountains. The district owns surface rights to the Agua Fria River dating back to 1888.

MWD built Waddell Dam in 1927, after which it began delivering water to landowners. MWD also provides electricity to its members.

MWD has a 157,600 acre-foot storage capacity in Lake Pleasant, which is impounded by the Reclamation-built New Waddell Dam, which put the District’s Waddell Dam 100 feet under water.

Downstream from Lake Pleasant, Camp Dyer Dam diverts water into the concrete-lined, gravity-fed Beardsley Canal. Water in the Beardsley Canal goes about 15 miles before it gets to the district; from there it runs along the west side of the district.

Ahead of the Efficiency Curve MWD owns and operates a 130-mile system of lined, open canals and pipelines that delivers water to the high corner of every section within the district.

In fact, our district was one of the few in which the entire system was lined with concrete. The main canal was completely lined by the early 1980s. Most of our laterals were lined in the 1960s.

At that time, the Soil Conservation Service had a program that provided funds for farmers to line ditches. If the farmers turned those funds over to the district, the district would then match those funds.

Twenty-five years ago, when I first started here, we were probably looking at 14 percent water loss. Right now, between our surface water and groundwater, MWD loses less than 10 percent of its total supplies annually. All of our pipes are rubber-gasket, reinforced-concrete pipe.

From Cotton to High Cash Value We serve 11,000 agricultural acres out of 39,000 total acres. Those agricultural acres include hobby farms—2- to 5-acre plots that flood irrigate for gardens, horses, and pastures. The most district land that had been utilized for agriculture was roughly 26,000 acres. There are sections of desert land in the district that had never been cultivated.

Historically, farmers in the district grew cotton, but we have not had cotton in the district for about five years now. Our farmers started moving over to vegetables and higher-cash-value crops—carrots;

Pleasant Harbor Marina.

16

Irrigation Leader

Old Waddell Dam. Completed in 1927. Breached and inundated in the early 1990s.

melons; broccoli; and some wheat, depending on the market. We have two of the largest rose growers in the United States. Many of our vegetable farmers have moved from furrow to sprinkler irrigation, but generally, MWD growers have used flood.

Development-Driven Infrastructure Projects Over the last 15 years, more than half of MWD’s service area has been developed. Recent infrastructure projects have been driven by that development. A lot of our old laterals have gone into pipeline to accommodate those development projects.

A few years back, a local developer needed to modify one of MWD’s siphons on the Beardsley Canal by widening it to reduce the floodplain on the upstream side.

The developer came in and replaced a 50-foot by 10-foot by 10-foot box siphon with a 250-foot long, 10-foot diameter, double-barrel siphon. MWD expects to have one or two more of those types of projects coming up in the next few years.

Aging Groundwater Infrastructure As part of our water portfolio, MWD owns and operates a well field of 50 wells. We power our pumps with hydropower from Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams.

We also buy supplemental power from Arizona Public Service and excess power from the Navajo Generating Station. Those wells were originally drilled to a depth of

Irrigation Leader

500 feet in the late 1930s and early 1940s. They were deepened to 1,000 feet in the 1950s. That means that MWD has an old well field in need of rehab. In fact, the district has reached the point at which we will have to start drilling new wells.

When the original wells were drilled to 500 feet, the wells had 20-inch casings; when MWD deepened them, the wells required 16-inch casings. Those casings are now 60 years old.

We cannot patch them anymore. If the district relines them again, it would require a 14-inch casing. MWD is known as the district with the crooked holes—that is why all of our wells are submersible. The holes are not straight enough for turbines. So if we adopt 14-inch casings, we will need to find 12-inch submersible pumps.

Pumps that size are expensive and have a short lifespan.

Getting Creative With Water Supplies Water supply is an issue—MWD will be nearly out of surface water by the end of this year. Historically, the production from our watershed is about 45,000 acre-feet per year (based on a 60-year average). We have been below 10,000 acre-feet per year for the last 4 years. With us, it is feast or famine.

We supplement our surface water with groundwater and in lieu water, which is available here in Arizona through a program managed by the state Department of Water Resources. MWD has a permit for a groundwater savings facility for up to 40,000 acre-ft. In lieu of groundwater pumping, we procure water from Central Arizona Project (CAP) contractors. If the contractors cannot make use of their CAP water, MWD may pay them for their water in lieu of pumping groundwater.

We have been doing that for 15 years. Right now, MWD pumps about 9,000 acre-feet of water; 15 years ago, we were pumping 25,000 acre-feet of water. This arrangement works out well because MWD can buy that CAP water for less than what the power costs to pump the groundwater.

Back in the 1980s, MWD did have a CAP allocation of 40,000 acre-feet. However, since the allocation was subject to a take-or-pay setup, it was too much for us.

With a couple of big rains, MWD would have water for 3 to 5 years. Also, taking our allocation subjected us to Reclamation Reform Act requirements. That didn’t sit well with our bigger farmers. For those reasons, the district

17

Beardsley Canal, MWD's main water delivery conduit.

elected to not sign the contract. However, in anticipation of signing that CAP contract, MWD built a turnout off the CAP canal to the Beardsley Canal. So, when MWD contracts for CAP water, it can take the water directly into our system.

MWD is also working with a local water company to sell some of the district’s surface water supplies to it for residential use. Surface water is appurtenant to the land.

So, the water company would buy surface water from MWD on behalf of those lands that cannot take direct use of MWD surface water, treat the water, and return the water to those lands as potable water. It is a program that is similar to what Salt River Project does with some of Arizona’s big cities.

Employing the Entrepreneurial Spirit to Subsidize the Delivery of Water MWD sells water at $40 an acre-foot, but it costs the district $90 an acre-foot to deliver it. So MWD subsidizes water to our farms by $50 an acre-foot. To provide that subsidy, the district has ventured into providing different services to diversify its revenue streams. As mentioned above, MWD sells power to our farmers and to municipal wells, treatment plants, and pumping stations.

MWD is also in the recreation business—MWD owns and operates Pleasant Harbor, a marina and RV resort, on Lake Pleasant. As compensation for inundating MWD’s Waddell Dam and adjoining land with the construction of New Waddell Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation transferred 225 acres on the east side of the lake—the only private land surrounding the lake—to the district.

Twenty years ago, we entered into a lease agreement with a private company to build and operate a marina

18

on the lakeshore of Pleasant Harbor. We received a percentage of its gross revenues. Last April, the 20-year lease expired and the district bought the marina. So now MWD is an irrigation district that runs an RV resort with 250 full hook-up sites, boat ramps, and a 600-wet-slip marina. Because of these operations, MWD employs 120 full- and part-time employees. Those 225 acres are truly invaluable.

We also consider ourselves land developers. To form the district and set its boundaries, William Beardsley, who was instrumental in the development of MWD, swapped land with the railroad. So initially, the district owned all of the land within its boundaries. The district then sold off land to the farmers. Over the years, some of that land came back to the district. The bottom line is that the district owned about 2,500 acres of land. As land came under development in the mid-1990s, MWD decided to do a master plan of its existing land assets. We usually take the development plans up to final plat and, at that point, sell it to developers. We have sold off about 800 of those acres.

With all of these enterprises, we have to remind ourselves sometimes that MWD’s primary purpose is to deliver water. However, these enterprises exist to subsidize the cost of water. As long as the business that we do is appurtenant to our main purpose—to deliver irrigation water at the lowest possible cost—it is appropriate.

Glen Vortherms has worked for Maricopa Water District for 26 years, the last 2 as general manager. You can reach Glen at glenv@mwdaz.com or 623.546.8266.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Manager’s Profile

Mike Urton

T

he San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD) delivers water to the sun-baked Gila River Valley in south-central Arizona.

Established in the 1920s, the SCIDD is part of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) irrigation project that comprises 100,000 acres—50,000 acres on Indian land and 50,000 off the reservation. SCIDD’s counterpart on the Gila River Indian Reservation is the Gila River Irrigation and Drainage District.

Built in 1928 and dedicated by the nation’s 30th president, Coolidge Dam impounds the San Carlos Reservoir east of Globe, Arizona. Fifty miles downstream and just east of Florence is Ashurst–Hayden Diversion Dam. SCIDD’s 300 miles of earth-lined canals deliver water to an area that runs nearly 35 miles from the diversion dam to city of Casa Grande. SCIDD is divided into six districts that coordinate with the BIA to manage joint works facilities that deliver water to both SCIDD and the Gila River Indian Reservation.

Mike Urton has been associated with SCIDD for a long time. A farmer by trade, Mike served on the SCIDD board, including as board president, from 1983 to 2006.

The board asked Mike to come back as general manager in February of this year to help facilitate a full-scale canal relining and infrastructure upgrade. He oversees an experienced staff of 23 who cover SCIDD’s day-to-day operations, enabling him to take on the political endeavors that go along with the job and the rehab project. Irrigation Leader’s senior writer, John Crotty, spoke with Mike about the challenges of rehabbing 300 miles of earthen canals, the realities of development and farming in the desert, and the role SCIDD will play in an urbanizing Pinal County.

John Crotty: Please describe the difference between serving as a board president and serving in the general manager position.

Mike Urton: I think [having served as board president] has been an advantage. The board respects where I’ve been and the experience I bring to the table.

When I came back to take this position, there had been almost a complete turnover on the nine-member board. There’s a mutual respect—I understand that they have farms to run and businesses. It helps to have been on both sides of the fence. It is a unique situation but a healthy one, I think.

John Crotty: What do farmers in your district grow?

22

Mike at Ashurst-Hayden Diversion Dam with the Ovivo trash handling system operating in the background.

Mike Urton: Cotton, alfalfa, corn silage, and small grains are the usual mix around here, cotton and alfalfa being most predominant. Arizona is actually a net exporter of alfalfa hay. There have been a lot of dairies that have moved into the area. The downside to that is that it takes quite a bit of water. We have been in a drought since 1994, so these last 20 years have been lean in terms of water supply.

Most landowners have an outside source of water— groundwater or Central Arizona Project—but not all.

The project owns and operates about 50 groundwater wells, but they are not available to the western half of our district. The crop insurance program helps to keep the overhead paid. It helps keep farmers in business, but it is not something we like to rely on. We have had to learn to live within the limited resources that come down the river.

John Crotty: Tell our readers about SCIDD’s rehabilitation project.

Mike Urton: We are in the middle of the rehab project—we’ve already rehabilitated the diversion dam and installed a sediment basin to remove coarse sediment from the system. Then, we will begin lining the non-Indian portion of our system with concrete.

All of this has been made possible through the Gila River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2005 and is being paid for through the Lower Colorado River Basin Fund. On the non-Indian portion of the project, we expect to save 25,000 to 35,000 acre-feet per year.

John Crotty: What are some of the biggest challenges facing the district?

Mike Urton: There are several: drought . . . water supply . . . one of our biggest issues, as you can imagine with 300 miles of earth-lined canals, is maintenance.

We’re busy with a lot of excavating equipment— Irrigation Leader

backhoes, slopers, graders. Maintenance expenses are a challenge.

One the blessings of the Water Settlement Act is that it helps us address that maintenance and water delivery challenge. The Indians have been made whole for the most part regarding water supply, and it provides the funding for SCIDD to line our system. Everyone involved shares in the savings. And right now, we are working to bring our rehabilitation project back on track.

We’re making progress. Of course, since the money to pay for the project is coming from the Bureau of Reclamation, we have a relationship with it and monthly coordination meetings with other agencies, including the BIA and the Pima–Maricopa Irrigation Project. There are a lot of entities involved, and a lot of coordination that needs to take place. One of the hats that I wear is administrator of the off-reservation portion of the rehab project. My job is to coordinate all of the efforts to get this done.

Mike Urton: Water is available to municipalities and schools for irrigation purposes only. There’s no domestic supply. This irrigation system has one of the heaviest sediment loads in the country. It’s not something I’m proud of, but it is just a fact of life. That is life on the Gila and San Pedro Rivers. We start seeing the San Pedro flow after summer rains, and that introduces a significant sediment load.

Average farm size is changing. My family has been farming here since 1948. When you go back to that era, it was all family farms. That has changed a lot. There’s been a lot of turnover in recent years. There are economies of scale. The average farm size is on the rise. There are some management companies that are moving in. We irrigate some subdivisions as well as farms with thousands of acres.

John Crotty: Has coordinating all the groups on this rehab project been a challenge?

Mike Urton: Breathe deep. It is important to try to understand different perspectives. Cooperation and openness are huge. I have an advantage because I am new—I don’t know the history among the different agencies, and I don’t care. We have a clean slate with all our partners. However, you do have to be firm. I represent the district’s landowners, and their interests come first in any negotiation.

Mike Urton: It is a challenge, although most of the people that we work with are cooperative and want to get the job done. When you have that many bureaucracies involved, there are territorial conflicts, but that is part of the challenge. Everyone is vested and has legitimate concerns. Those concerns need to be resolved.

The board came to me to fill this role thinking I was uniquely qualified. I may be. I don’t know; we’ll see if I am actually able to get something done. But I have worked before with these entities. I’ll see what I can do. I’m no miracle worker, but I look forward to the challenge, I like coming to work everyday, and I have a great staff to work with.

John Crotty: Are you looking to adopt some technology to help automate your system?

Mike Urton: There is a cost-benefit factor involved with automation. We tried a high level of technology to operate the gates and trash rack at the diversion dam. A lot of it is working well, but some of it not so well. Inherent with new technology are a lot of expense and a lot of bugs.

We’re reevaluating how high-tech we want to get. For the cost of some these systems, you can outfit a guy with a pickup for a lot less money. I think that we will have smart gates that operate automatically—there will be some smart structures along the way. How integrated those structures are remain to be seen. We’re looking forward to that.

John Crotty: How has urban growth impacted your district? Have you started delivering to municipalities?

Irrigation Leader

John Crotty: What advice would you give to other managers with respect to working with multiple agencies on infrastructure projects?

John Crotty: Looking ahead to the near future, what do you envision for SCIDD? Mike Urton: I have a five-year plan, and that is to have the rehabilitation done by then. That opens up possibilities for higher efficiencies and lower maintenance costs. This area is changing. We are in a corridor that is right between Phoenix and Tucson, so there is a lot of speculation as to what will happen over the next 10 to 20 years. Water will be key. Developers sometimes look ahead without considering the fact that you cannot live (or develop) in a desert without water. In the future, there will be more interactions with political bodies—the state, the county, municipalities—to come up with solutions to water supply problems.

SCIDD will be right in the middle of it. Our supply is not reliable—we have one reservoir, and our watershed is in western New Mexico, where it is broad and flat. But it is a supply, and it will be important to this area going down the road. We look forward to being an important player in Pinal County and in central Arizona. There will be challenges, but as my administrator Sally likes to say, “Those challenges are opportunities to excel.”

23

R E C L A M A T I O N

P R O F I L E

Deputy Commissioner Jennifer Gimbel

J

ennifer Gimbel is the Bureau of Reclamation’s deputy commissioner for external and intergovernmental affairs. She oversees Reclamation’s congressional, legislative, and public affairs activities and is responsible for Reclamation’s relationships with federal, state, and local governments, as well as citizen organizations and other nongovernmental groups.

Jennifer started her career working for the Wyoming Attorney General’s office and the Colorado Attorney General’s office, where she advised and represented the attorney general and other state officials regarding interstate water matters, water law, and administrative law. She worked at Reclamation from 2001 until 2008 on a variety of policy and program issues, including serving as chair of the secretary’s Indian Water Rights Working Group.

Jennifer spent the next five years as director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), which is the water policy agency for the state of Colorado. Jennifer moved from the CWCB to the U.S. Department of the Interior as counselor to the assistant secretary for water and science, where she focused on legislative and legal matters addressing the Rio Grande, Salton Sea, California Bay Delta, and the Clean Water Act. Jennifer has a bachelor of science and juris doctor from the University of Wyoming and a master of science from the University of Delaware.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Jennifer about her new position and what is on the horizon for Reclamation’s public outreach program.

24

Deputy Commissioner Gimbel speaking with attendee of Reclamation Stakeholder meeting in Denver, Colorado.

Kris Polly: Irrigation is near and dear to you. Tell us about your connection to irrigated agriculture.

Jennifer Gimbel: I grew up in Cheyenne, but I spent summers with my uncles Rueben and Louie on their eastern Colorado farms.

My dad made sure that his three girls knew where their food came from and how hard it was to work on a farm; so, we would spend time helping with all the chores—milking the cows, working the vegetable garden.

My uncles were flood irrigators. My dad didn’t want me to get in the way, so I would watch my uncles set the tubes to irrigate—it was a real art form. Those summers formed my first experience dealing with the importance of water and understanding how necessary it was for my uncles to grow hay.

Kris Polly: You started this past March. How do you like the job?

Jennifer Gimbel: Love it. It’s a great job; I love the people. I am very comfortable with the issues. I really enjoy working with all of the different Reclamation partners and stakeholders: water users, M&I [municipal and industrial], recreation, the NGOs [nongovernmental organizations].

Kris Polly: Tell our readers about the job. What are your responsibilities?

Jennifer Gimbel: Part of my job is to make sure that we are communicating with our stakeholders, with each other, and with Congress; making sure that information is getting out. Dan DuBray, chief of public affairs, and Dionne Thompson, chief of congressional Irrigation Leader

and legislative affairs, have been essential in our communication efforts. The biggest issue I am addressing right now is California water. I thought the Colorado River was complicated, but I am learning that it is not nearly as complicated as California.

I love being able to meet new people and new stakeholders, to figure out really complex issues and how to reach a good outcome. With California, we are dealing with the drought and the Bay–Delta Conservation Plan.

Knowing that we have work that needs to be done in the delta and farmers and municipalities that need to get water, ensuring a sustainable supply for the future really is a huge puzzle.

Kris Polly: What are some of the other key issues that you will be addressing in the next couple of years?

Jennifer Gimbel: Drought is the big one. However, we will also be addressing climate change. As you know, President Obama and Secretary Jewel are very focused on ensuring that we are mitigating and figuring out how to move forward on the issue. Two key efforts for mitigating climate change are WaterSmart and the Title XVI programs, particularly water efficiency grants and basin studies. We are also looking at stretching water and power supplies in the face of growing demands. Along those lines, we are working to help irrigators use existing facilities for hydropower.

Kris Polly: Have you been able to get to the different regions and visit with local Reclamation staff, water providers, and irrigators?

Mike Miller, general manager of Greater Wonatchee Irrigation district in background with Deputy Commissioner Gimbel during stakeholder tour.

Right now, one of our main topics is Reclamation’s infrastructure initiative. Reclamation is in the process of selecting data to detail the infrastructure we have, its age, and what improvements are needed. We are also looking at the best ways to share that information with people and how to fund the kind of program that ensures we keep up with all that data. We will likely have a PowerPoint presentation on this issue at our July stakeholders’ meeting in Denver. I expect a more substantial report in September.

Kris Polly: What is your message to our readers about working with the Bureau of Reclamation?

Jennifer Gimbel: I have not had the opportunity to get out and about outside of California and the Technical Resource Center in Denver. We are getting ready to do a stakeholder meeting in Denver in July. Dan [DuBray] and I have a grand plan to conduct stakeholder meetings in every region in the next couple of years. We want to get out and meet the people whom we serve. We want to have an opportunity to talk with them, answer their questions, and get their ideas. This will coincide with the arrival of the new commissioner, Estevan López.

Jennifer Gimbel: Reclamation is their friend. I have seen Reclamation do some great things for different constituencies and get very involved in local communities.

[Reclamation officials] care: They care about the delivery of water and power; they care about the job; they care about the communities in which they work. I hope people see that. If they do not see that, they should let me know.

Kris Polly: If people have ideas for the regional stakeholder meetings, how can they best get those ideas to you?

Jennifer Gimbel: As I mentioned earlier, irrigators have a soft spot in my heart. I do have a sense of what they go through and how they make their living. I know that from my early years helping out on my uncles’ farms.

It is kind of a personal sentiment, but I look at irrigators as if they are my uncles. I remember how smart and how humble they were.

Irrigators can be extraordinarily creative in finding workable solutions. They have my respect.

Jennifer Gimbel: They can email Dan or me. We are interested in new ideas and whether we are reaching all potential stakeholders. Are there people interested in what we are doing that we haven’t reached yet?

We are definitely looking for topics for those meetings.

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: And what is your message to irrigators specifically?

25

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Innovators

XRI:

Facilitating Data-Driven Water Management

F

ounded in 2012, Exploration Resources International Geophysics (XRI) provides global geoscience solutions for water resources, mining, engineering, petroleum, agriculture, and government. XRI scientists have widespread research and development backgrounds in government, industry, and academia. Our teams blend technical and scientific applications for real-world water resource problems.

From product development to service delivery, XRI delivers cradle-to-grave solutions to solve water resource challenges. XRI solutions enable decisionmakers to take a holistic approach to allocating resources. For example, governments can optimize well-field development for their cities or better allocate resources and plan for future demand.

By knowing groundwater supply, managers and users can draw accurate and timely conclusions.

XRI’s geophysical airborne mapping approach is an integral component of our solution for groundwater mapping, modeling, and management. Using an airborne sensor, we can see into the ground, which gives us an understanding of the subsurface resources.

With the sensor technology and the science behind the applications, we map unknowns in the earth, such as the base of the aquifer, aquifer thickness, and the presence of confining layers.

Managed Aquifer Recharge

Of particular value to irrigation districts and municipal water districts is the use of XRI’s data and expertise in siting managed aquifer recharge (MAR) sites and providing operating plans for using the water from them to meet a management goal. MAR involves retasking existing facilities, building infrastructure, or modifying the landscape to intentionally enhance groundwater recharge.

Often, however, MAR approaches rely on limited information for siting the proper locations for best use of the water. By properly siting a MAR location, groundwater supply can be optimized for storage and recovery. With some MAR projects costing millions of dollars—depending on the infrastructure needed to be successful—it is essential to ensure that the money is going to the right locations.

We use an innovative approach of modeling information gained from airborne mapping with existing data on an area’s geology and hydrogeology

28

to characterize the proposed MAR location in high definition. We then follow up with aquifer characterization that quantifies the subsurface materials, allowing for the best use of funding to install the infrastructure to add and remove water from the chosen site. We work with irrigation districts and municipal water districts to develop a management plan to meet the specific needs of the constituents.

The geophysical mapping and creation of hydrogeologic frameworks represents the natural system in detail and enables water managers, including individual landowners, to shape a management plan that can work in the midst of existing conditions for the area. XRI’s water quantity efforts have included mapping the volume and extent of aquifers, examining groundwater–surface-water relationships, and modeling surface water and groundwater relationships.

With an understanding of the hydrogeologic framework, managers can utilize groundwater flow modeling to test management scenarios before implementing programs.

Groundwater Mapping on the High Plains

XRI scientists have conducted many groundwater assessments with irrigation districts and local municipalities throughout North America. One recent assessment was undertaken in eastern Nebraska, a state facing severe impacts to groundwater resources due to widespread drought. The Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District recognized the need to assess groundwater availability in the area surrounding the towns of Clarkson and Howells, where domestic wells were experiencing reduced or negligible pumping capacity.

The Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District hired XRI to assess the distribution and character of aquifer deposits beneath the thick glacial till deposits between the towns of Clarkson and Howells and the surrounding areas. XRI was able to identify approximately 106,608 acre-feet of available groundwater in storage for municipal and agricultural supplies.

Informed Planning

Water management in river basins is an increasingly difficult task for water managers and users alike. By understanding the resource—brackish or Irrigation Leader

marginal waters, fresh water, saltwater intrusion zones— water managers are better able to plan for the demand of the resource. Often, we discover that we did not know much about the natural system and how to manage it.

Understanding that natural system helps water managers determine which particular activities are needed to achieve water supply and water quality goals.

With questions on XRI’s geoscience solutions, contact Lydia Henshaw, portfolio manager for XRI Geophysics. You can reach her at Lydia.henshaw@xrigeo.com or (601) 738‑0236.

You can visit the XRI website at www.xrigeo.com.

XRI technology in use. Helicopter follows GPS grid pattern at speeds of up to 50 mph. Sensors can map ground composition to depths of 1,500 feet.

Irrigation Leader

29

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

CALL: 509-467-8487

jill@fixcanal.com - www.fixcanal.com

ADVERTISEMENT

The Innovators

Concrete Cloth: The Fabric of Water Infrastructure

M

illiken is a 150-year-old American company with its origins in the textile mills of the Northeast. While remaining true to its textile roots, Milliken has evolved over the years. With its headquarters now located in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and sales offices and operations worldwide, Milliken describes itself as an “innovation company.”

It has diversified, moving beyond the manufacture of strictly textiles into a variety of products—35,000— with applications from sportswear to floor coverings to chemicals for industrial use. According to Rich Pilston, business manager for Concrete Cloth, Milliken develops products that “help other products work better.”

Milliken Infrastructure Solutions, LLC, is the section of the company that applies Milliken’s innovations to the building and infrastructure industries. One of those solutions is Concrete Cloth, a cement-impregnated fabric manufactured in LaGrange, Georgia. Milliken is the exclusive manufacturer and marketer of Concrete Cloth in the United States and Canada. Concrete Cloth has three primary applications: ditch lining/relining dirt waterways, slope repair and slope protection, and pipe work (for example, covering a corroded section of pipe).

The Idea The idea for Concrete Cloth originated in a design competition in the United Kingdom. In 2004,

two engineering students, Peter Brewin and Will Crawford, were looking for a way to make a rapidly deployable shelter of a semipermanent nature— something with a strong outer shell that was easily transportable and could be installed in a matter of hours—for use on humanitarian projects. The idea was to deploy an inflatable shelter, packaged with doors and all, to a site and hook it up to an air pump. The outside of the shelter would be covered in a fabric, which when sprayed with water, would become hard in a 24‑hour period.

The British military saw the shell of the shelter— what was to become Concrete Cloth—as an interesting material with a variety of potential uses.

The technology took on a new life from there. All of Concrete Cloth’s civil engineering applications came out of military experiments.

Specs Sizing a roll requires balancing the usable length of the material with how it is to be handled.

Milliken sells batch rolls, at roughly 150 pounds a roll, which can fit in the back of a pickup and move relatively easily in the field. On larger projects, Milliken sells bulk rolls that weigh 1.5 tons.

The standard product is 3.6 feet wide and is produced in a couple different lengths and thicknesses, ranging from two-tenths of an inch (CC5) to five-tenths of an inch (CC13). Fabric thickness determines weight per unit area. For a square foot

A close-up of Concrete Cloth prior to hydration.

32

Irrigation Leader

of Concrete Cloth, CC5 would weigh 1.4 pounds, while CC13 would weigh 4 pounds. A bulk roll of CC5 covers about 2,150 square feet, CC8 covers 1,345 square feet, and CC13 covers 860 square feet. Typically, the cloth retails at about $5.00 to $10.00 per square foot on average, depending on thickness and amount of material.

Installation is simple and efficient, and installation costs typically run 10 to 15 percent of the material cost.

The lifespan is of course dependent on location and environment. In Milliken’s own tests, the product performed as well or better than traditional high-strength concrete (9,000 to 10,000 psi).

The NPIC crew cut the Concrete Cloth to fit the bottom, laid it in place, and fastened it to the existing concrete. The cloth was glued and fastened to the walls with a nail gun. The crew screwed the overlaps together.

Finally, the cloth was hydrated with a water truck late the same day. Project costs totaled $2,500.

A Typical Install Concrete Cloth can be cut to size with a standard razor knife. A typical installation will require an overlap of about 4 inches, screwed in every 12 to 18 inches. And for water applications, adhesive may be added between the two overlapping layers before screwing it down to provide an additional layer of water resistance.

After setting the sized cloth down on, say, an earthen ditch, water is sprayed on the cloth to excess. There are 2 hours’ worth of working time after the application of water and prior to setting. Within 24 hours, the cloth reaches 70 to 80 percent of its full strength.

According to Rich Pilston, “Within a day, you have a hard concrete layer. With ditch applications, you can install it, hydrate it, and turn the water back on the next day. The product cannot be overhydrated.”

The weir structure in need of repair at North Poudre.

Install in North Poudre The North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) has been instrumental in the development of agriculture along the northern Front Range of Colorado. For nearly The structure covered by Concrete Cloth prior to hydration.

100 years, NPIC has delivered water to agricultural and municipal customers with an extensive delivery system. It owns more than 22 storage reservoirs and 200 miles of ditches.

Many of NPIC’s concrete weir structures are in need of some repair.

This year, NPIC began working on one of its more problematic weirs.

Weighing repair against complete replacement, NPIC decided to repair using Concrete Cloth for a variety of reasons: The material can be shaped to the configuration of each individual basin, it can be installed by the NPIC crew, it is fire-resistant, The weir structure in use after the Concrete Cloth has set. and it is portable.

Irrigation Leader

33

The Innovators

Flexible Water Control Solutions:

F

Rubber Dams From Yooil

ounded in 1989 and headquartered in South Korea, Yooil Engineering has designed and constructed more than 200 inflatable rubber dams. Since 2009, Yooil has expanded its service area beyond East Asia to include projects in North America and Europe. Yooil’s rubber dams can be employed for a variety of uses: capturing or releasing floodwaters, controlling headwaters, or diverting water for irrigation or power generation.

This family-owned business has been involved with Korean power utilities for many years. Brothers Jae and Sean Lee oversee the rubber dam component of the company. The name Yooil has two meanings in Korean: “one that is generous in manner and plentiful in wealth”—a meaning embraced by the brothers’ father; and “the one and only”—now embraced by Jae, the company’s current president.

The Need for Effective Water Management in Korea While South Korea's average precipitation rate

is 33 percent higher than the global average, it has significant water challenges. The combination of a mountainous geography and an intense summer monsoon season brings heavy rains that cause floods and churn up a tremendous amount of rocks and logs.

Of its total annual precipitation, 55 percent flows into rivers, creeks, and lakes. And of that 55 percent, 70 percent is lost to floods, while net runoff is only 18 percent. That can prove problematic for South Korea’s dense population, which relies on river water for 50 percent of its municipal use. The holder of more than 30 patents on rubber dams, Yooil has worked extensively to design, develop, and install water storage projects across South Korea.

The Rubber Dam The idea of the rubber dam was born here in the United States. In 1956, Norman Imbertson, an innovative engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, developed the idea of a sealed, inflatable rubber dam tethered to a foundation. The

Jae Lee, President & CEO of Yooil Engineering.

34

Irrigation Leader

following year, the Department of Water and Power installed the first “fabridam” across the Los Angeles River.

By the mid-1960s, the technology had been adopted in Japan. Bridgestone began manufacturing rubber “bladders” inflatable by air or water. Over the years, Bridgestone improved upon the original design, developing three generations of the product. Yooil now is manufacturing the fourth generation of rubber dam.

Yooil’s rubber dams consist of a rubber bladder clamped to a concrete foundation that inflates and deflates to regulate water levels. Digital and analog pressure sensors respond to changes in the rubber bladders’ internal pressure. Sensors also monitor water levels and automatically control the air blowers and exhaust valves in order to maintain the desired levels.

Dam operations are controlled with an HMI touch panel equipped with SCADA link. The dams are also equipped with a fail-safe mechanical system to ensure necessary inflation levels during power outages.

Yooil’s rubber bladder is made of a synthetic mixed rubber, EPDM (Etylene Propylene Diene Monomer) and layered with reinforcement nylon and polyester fabrics.

Kevlar inserts render the bladder resistant to knives and some calibers of bullets. Yooil dams have been extensively field tested. That testing has shown the rubber dam to retain sealed integrity when struck with buckshot; however, it is susceptible to higher-caliber weapons. To address this, Yooil designed the rubber dam to operate in low air pressure, so when air leaks, a pressure sensor will detect the drop and feed the bladder a constant flow of air. And even if a shot penetrates the rubber bladder, an operator can later patch it up with a repair kit that comes supplied with the dam.

Rainbow Dam, on the Missouri River, near Great Falls, Montana.

Manager Sean Lee stresses that “Yooil will work extensively to find the right and most effective solution for our client.” Yooil values quality. The company warrants the rubber bladder for 10 years and estimates that the operational lifespan of a rubber dam is 30 years. And the company takes a great deal of pride in its work and its manufacturing facilities. Sean Lee welcomes anyone interested in his company’s products to tour its manufacturing facilities. “The only issue is that you have to come to Korea.” Despite the long flight to Korea, many of Yooil’s international clients have visited its facilities.

For more information about Yooil’s rubber dams, visit http://www.yooileng.co.kr/eng/ or email Sean Lee at LSH@yooileng.co.kr.

Dams in Montana The ability of rubber dams to withstand cold temperatures has been thoroughly tested in Montana.

In 2013, Yooil worked with PPL Montana to replace the aging Bridgestone rubber dam at Rainbow Dam near Great Falls. PPL Montana installed two new, 222‑foot-long Yooil rubber dam gates atop a portion of Rainbow Dam as part of a $245 million redevelopment project. And back in 2003, a 100‑foot Yooil rubber dam was installed along the Dodson Diversion Dam on the Milk River Project to replace the worn-out steel gates.

Pride, Service, and Quality Yooil values service—from initial client inquiries to project planning to execution. International Project Irrigation Leader

Dodson Diversion Dam on the Milk River, five miles west of Dodson, Montana.

35

ADVERTISEMENT

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

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

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

(575) 526-2101

For more information contact:

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

Family Farm

LLIANCE The Family

Fax (575) 526-2506 Email:

slh@lclaw-nm.com

SM

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

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

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

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

ADVERTISEMENT

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

E T A D E SAVE TH National Water Resources Association

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

July 28–30,2014

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS TEJON RANCH CO. Director of Water Operations Tejon Ranch Co. is seeking a Director of Water Operations with public or private water district experience. Successful candidate should have experience in the management of water district systems and have knowledge of CEQA and NEPA permitting requirements.

Exceptional communication skills and organizational skills. This position will provide support to multiple divisions within the organization. Duties will include the generation of department and project status reports and coordinate correspondence to multiple agencies.

Minimum of 5 years experience in a related field with a degree in Civil Engineering, Water Resource Management or Public Administration. Company offers a competitive compensation and benefits package.

Please submit resume and cover letter to dspars@tejonranch.com. No phone calls please.

For information on posting to the Classified Listings, please e-mail

Irrigation.Leader@ waterstrategies.com

ADVERTISEMENT

2014 CALENDAR

June 4–6 June 11–13 June 19 June 23–24 July 14–18 July 28–30 July 31–August 1 August 13–14 August 20–22 August 21 August 26–28 October 14–16 October 15–17 November 6 November 6–7 November 17–21

Groundwater Management District Assn., Summer Session, Atlantic City, NJ Texas Water Conservation Assn., Mid-Year Conference, Horseshoe Bay, TX Wyoming Water Assn., Summer Tour, Powell, WY Idaho Water Users Association, Summer Water Law & Resource Issues Seminar, Sun Valley, ID ESRI, User Conference, San Diego, CA National Water Resources Assn. Western Water Seminar, Flagstaff, AZ Kansas Water Congress, Summer Conference, Manhtattan, KS Assn. of California Water Agencies, Regulatory Summit, South Lake Tahoe, CA Colorado Water Congress, Summer Conference, Snowmass Village, CO Columbia Basin Development League, Water Day, Royal City, WA Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Groundwater Summit, San Marcos, TX Nevada Water Resources Association, Fall Symposium, Reno, NV Texas Water Conservation League, Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX Columbia Basin Development League, 50th Annual Meeting, Moses Lake, WA Idaho Water Users Association, Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID Irrigation Assn., Irrigation Show and Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ

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