Irrigation Leader March 2011

Volume 2 Issue 3

March 2011

John Anderson: Idaho Irrigation District Experiences Urbanization, Threats of Encroachment

Magazine’s Success Due to Ideas from Readers Standing in the back of the meeting room during the Family Farm Alliance annual conference in Las Vegas in February, I observed two things. The first was that there was record attendance, as nearly every chair was filled. The second was that every irrigation district manager or board member I spoke with had a great idea for the magazine.

“We really appreciate your magazine,” they would say, and then follow with, “Have you thought about doing an article on . . . ” After writing many notes on the backs of my own business cards, we have countless article ideas to pursue.

One idea we implemented in this issue of Irrigation Leader came from Frank Hammerich, manager of Oregon’s Langell Valley Irrigation District. Hammerich began our conversation by saying, “Let me tell you about my district . . . ” Our conversation underscored that every irrigation district has a story to tell, and that it is enormously helpful for managers to know about the issues and ideas of other districts across the West.

To that end, we added the “District Focus” section to the magazine. This new section will feature comprehensive articles about individual districts. In this month’s edition, we included an article about Hammerich’s district, as well as one about the Yuma County Water Users’ Association in Arizona, written by its general manager, Tom Davis. Each issue, this section will feature articles about geographically diverse districts.

A second conversation during this year’s Texas Water Conservation Association annual conference in Austin, Texas, underscored the value we hope the magazine provides to the western irrigation community. Don Yonts, a representative of HDPE pipe producer Contech Construction Products, Inc., told me he was a late vendor registrant to the meeting.

“I’m based out of Ohio, but I saw this meeting advertised in a magazine that one of our competitors was in and thought I better get to Texas,” he said.

“Which magazine was that?” I asked.

“The magazine stacked over there on the registration table, Irrigation Leader,” he replied.

The vision behind Irrigation Leader is to highlight the work of irrigation districts throughout the West and facilitate an exchange of ideas among members of this important industry. Alerting broader audiences to activities and conferences occurring nationwide is central to this mission and, as a result of my conversation with Yonts, the magazine will do more to reach out to national, regional, and state water organizations to advertise their meetings for potential attendees and vendors.

When we launched Irrigation Leader in October 2010, We were not sure how it would be received. However, since our first issue, the comments I have heard in my travels throughout the West have been very positive, and I attribute the magazine’s success to the numerous ideas put forth by readers in my conversations with them.

I sincerely appreciate your support of this venture and request that you keep your article and advertising ideas coming.

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.

2

Irrigation Leader

C O N T E N T S

MARCH 2011

2 Magazine’s Success Due to Ideas from

Volume 2

Issue 3

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for NovemberDecember and July-August by: Water Strategies, LLC P.O. Box 100576 Arlington, VA 22210

Readers

By Kris Polly, editor-in-chief

4 Idaho Irrigation District Experiences Urbanization, Threats of Encroachment 8

Reclamation Releases President’s Budget Request of Just Over $1 Billion

10

Questions to Consider When Financing an Infrastructure Project

Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Chisholm, Senior Writer Jean Schafer, Project Manager Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copy Editor

12

Levee Safety Committee Vice Chair Responds to Questions on Proposals, Application to Irrigation Canals

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.

14

Colorado Irrigators Form “Super Ditch” to Combine Water Transfer Negotiation Efforts

15

Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center Aims to Promote Sustainability Goals

ADVERTISING: Irrigation Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads.

For more information on rates and placement, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Irrigation Leader is distributed to irrigation district managers and boards of directors in the 17 western states, Bureau of Reclamation officials, Members of Congress and committee staff, and advertising sponsors.

For address corrections or additions, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

COVER PHOTO: The Ridenbaugh Canal is the main supply canal of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. It carries 530 cubic feet per second of water from the Boise River to Lake Lowell. Photo provided by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.

Irrigation Leader

By James W. Ziglar

16 Nebraska Project Poised to Aid Interstate

Water Compact, Protect Producers

18 Arizona’s Agri-Business Council Seeks to

Ensure Continued Supply of Water and Power in Support of Irrigators

By Chris Udall

ISTRICT FOCUS D 20 Oregon Irrigation District Fears Water Shut-Offs,

Advocates for Meaningful Recovery Projects

22

Yuma County Water Users' Association Manages Water for High-Value Irrigated Farmland

By Frank Hammerich

By Tom Davis

ater Law W 24 The National Committee on Levee Safety:

Why Does it Matter and Where Is it Going?

By Bill McDonald

HE INNOVATORS T 28 Orthman Strip-Tillage System Promotes Water

Conservation, Cost Savings

29

Fontanelle’s AquaView Project Targets Water Savings, Increased Profitability

30 Cal Poly Irrigation Center Trains District Staff

Funds Academic Programs

3

Idaho Irrigation District Experiences Urbanization, Threats of Encroachment

A

s formerly agricultural areas continue to urbanize, irrigation districts face threats from encroachment that represent concerns to both public safety and the delivery of water. Idaho’s Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) is familiar with the effects of urbanization and encroachment, as around 65 percent of its 69,000 acres is now home to suburban subdivisions, business parks, and industrial areas.

Founded in 1904 and tracing its roots to the 1800s, NMID has seen unprecedented growth since the 1970s. The district was originally privately owned, and then became a Reclamation project around 1926. The district accomplished a title transfer in 2000 and now owns all of the facilities it operates.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, discussed these issues with NMID Water Superintendent John Anderson on March 9. Anderson has been with the district for 35 years and has served in his current position since 1989. During his long tenure, Anderson has seen NMID transform from a primarily agricultural district to one that now also serves several urban areas.

Kris Polly: What is the biggest issue facing NMID? John Anderson: Urbanization has probably been one of the biggest challenges we’ve faced. People are building homes, industrial areas, schools, and businesses on what used to be farmland. I count all of that as urbanization.

Kris Polly: NMID is now around 65 percent urbanized.

How does that work? Are you still delivering water to the urbanized areas?

John Anderson: Yes, we deliver it under pressure, and we’ve been doing that probably since the mid-1970s, with even more expansion in the early 1990s. On all lands in Treasure Valley now, all urban water is required to be pressurized as the valley subdivides. We currently have 8,000 or 9,000 acres under pressure for which NMID is directly responsible. We also deliver water to the City of Nampa, which pressurizes about the same amount.

Ridenbaugh Canal in Ada County showing urbanization.

Due to District's efforts, fences are located on property line.

4

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: What are the uses for that pressurized water?

John Anderson: Lawns and gardens, as well as

business and industrial areas. None of it is potable water.

It is all still used for what it was intended, mostly growing grass. Some crops are receiving water under pressure, but most are still on a gravity system.

Kris Polly: How many people now receive NMID water?

John Anderson: We probably have total assessments

of around 51,000 tracks of land, which has a huge potential for well over 100,000 taxpayers.

Kris Polly: What kind of challenges do you have with urbanization in terms of your facilities?

John Anderson: The biggest challenge we face is encroachment, keeping people out so they are not building on our canal banks or getting too close to them. We have been pretty successful at it over the last 25 years because we work well with the cities and counties around here.

They allow us to comment on many of these subdivisions and other new buildings before they are approved, which helps us quite a bit. We also do a lot of concrete lining and piping, which may not have otherwise been done.

Kris Polly: How do you typically deal with an encroachment that has already occurred?

John Anderson: First, I speak with the person and request that they remove it, if that is what is required. If it is something we can live with, and sometimes we can for things like a plot of grass or something like that, we have legal documents and permits that allow them to encroach.

Hopefully we get their cooperation, but once in a while it turns into a legal battle. We try to avoid that because we all know what attorneys cost these days.

Kris Polly: Have you had many legal battles for typical encroachments?

John Anderson: Yes. In my tenure in this position

since 1989, we have been in pretty big courtroom battles probably half a dozen times in the last 22 years. They are very costly, but fortunately, we prevailed about 90 percent of the time. Generally, the cases that made it to court were pretty bad encroachments.

Kris Polly: What are some examples of egregious encroachments NMID dealt with?

John Anderson: We have some developers that

will cut into the slope of a canal bank because they want more land to construct one or two more houses. In one case, there was a development that was built on a 1,000foot length of slope coming from out canal bank, and we had 17 leaks as a result. We could not bring our canal to capacity, and we had to have it concrete lined the following year. That was probably the worst one, and fortunately, the canal did not break, particularly because it was in Boise.

Something like that is a pretty big concern up in that heavily urbanized area.

Five Mile Drain in Meridian Idaho Bike Path.

Partridge Lateral Urban pump station built in violation by developer within 20-foot easement, Nampa Idaho.

Irrigation Leader

5

Kris Polly: Would you say that it is easier to deal with these encroachments legally as a title-transferred irrigation district?

John Anderson: Absolutely; it cuts one layer of

bureaucracy out of it. The federal requirements may not meet what our demands are for actually operating the facilities. That’s been a big help.

Kris Polly: What was Reclamation’s role with encroachments before your title transfer?

John Anderson: Well, when I first got in this position

in 1989, they were very protective of the facilities in which they had partial ownership with us, and it was not too bad a deal. However, in the early 1990s, I think the mission changed, and they started giving our easements away for things like bike paths, very contrary to what we had had for years. That was probably the primary reason that spurred title transfer for us. There was just no cooperation; they gave us no warning. Now, they are very helpful, but back then they made our operation very difficult to run.

Kris Polly: What about when you were involved with litigation, was Reclamation involved?

John Anderson: One time they came in and had one of their engineers testify for us, but that’s not a role they usually like to get into. Very seldom will they jump in with us.

Kris Polly: Are there issues other than encroachment that NMID deals with in terms of urbanization?

John Anderson: Pressurization of water, keeping your tax base, and protecting your water rights. I know a lot of other districts around Idaho don’t want to deal with urbanization. We took it head on, and it has probably been one of the best things we ever did. We’re certainly not perfect at it, but people need to make a greater effort to get around that.

Kris Polly: Has the urbanization helped modernize the infrastructure NMID uses to deliver water to agricultural users?

John Anderson: It has forced us to pipe and line some

of our ditches, which saves water and maintenance, but it’s a bit of a double-edged sword.

Kris Polly: What advice would you give to irrigation

districts in other states dealing with urbanization and encroachment?

John Anderson: First off, come up with district policies and procedures on how you are going to deal with encroachments. At the same time, you need to get pretty well acquainted with your local planning and zoning people, and try to position yourself to be better able to comment on proposed construction. That has been very helpful for me. I got to know those people a long time ago, and it has turned out very well. NMID’s system goes through Boise, Meridian, and Nampa, so we deal with several cities and couple different counties also, so it is very important.

Wilson lateral and Huntington Lateral split in Boise, Idaho showing development that was farm ground six months before photo. Fences are in violation of 20 foot from lateral center easement.

6

Irrigation Leader

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

Reclamation Releases President’s Budget Request of Just Over $1 Billion As the fiscal year 2011 budget process continues to drag on in Congress, Reclamation released the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request in February, which totals $1.018 billion. The request is slightly lower than last year’s request of $1.064 billion.

“The President’s budget proposal promotes fiscal responsibility while maximizing the community, economic, and environmental benefits of Reclamation’s projects and programs by promoting certainty, sustainability, and resiliency with respect to the use of water resources,” Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor said in a release announcing the request. “The President’s proposal continues to ensure the reliable and efficient delivery of water and production of renewable, clean hydropower, but also reflects the tough choices we must make in order to address the critical budget deficit.”

Overall, Reclamation aims to fund its water and related resources account with $805 million. Within this account, water and energy, land, and fish and wildlife resource management and development activities are slated to receive $398 million, while operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities would receive $407 million.

Highlights touted by Reclamation include work in ecosystem restoration, renewable energy and cooperative landscape conservation, the WaterSMART program, and growing infrastructure issues, among others.

Ecosystem Restoration

Reclamation’s request includes funds aimed at recovering endangered species and threatened watershed ecosystems. Budgeted amounts include $45 million for specific restoration efforts in California’s Central Valley

8

Project (CVP) and $53 million in contributions to CVP’s restoration fund.

Other highlights include funding for a multispecies conservation program in the lower Colorado River basin ($18 million), Endangered Species Act recovery programs throughout the western states ($20 million), environmental protection efforts associated with the Klamath River project ($19 million), the California Bay-Delta program ($40 million), the Middle Rio Grande’s endangered species collaborative program ($24 million), and salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia and Snake Rivers ($18 million).

No funds were requested for dam removal studies in the Klamath Basin, as these studies are being completed using previously approved appropriations. The studies will be used to inform a determination in 2012 as to whether removing four dams on the Lower Klamath River is in the public interest and advances the restoration of Klamath fisheries.

Renewable Energy and Cooperative Landscape Conservation

The request includes funding to support Reclamation’s continued efforts to respond to the impact of climate change on water supply in the western states. Budget items include $7 million for ongoing work in support of westwide climate risk assessments, landscape conservation cooperatives, and research efforts.

Reclamation is also working with the U.S. Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers to develop the capability to increase sustainable hydropower capacity.

These efforts are conducted in support of the President’s overall clean energy goals.

Irrigation Leader

WaterSMART Program

Reclamation proposed $59 million in funding for its WaterSMART program, which assists local entities in implementing programs with water conservation and management goals. Potential projects that would be funded include voluntary water banks, demand reduction activities, water conservation and reuse programs, and improved energy efficiency projects.

Funding for WaterSMART has historically been conducted in three program areas: the WaterSMART grant program, basin studies, and Title XVI water reclamation and reuse projects. However, this year’s budget includes new funding in two areas. First, Reclamation plans to continue to fund the water conservation field services program as a new component of WaterSMART, with $5 million. Second, the agency’s budget request also includes $250,000 for a cooperative watershed management program with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). USGS’s budget request includes $11 million to conduct a multiyear, nationwide water availability and use assessment program.

Overall, Reclamation hopes to increase available water supply in the West by 490,000 acre-feet during the fiscal year.

Aging Infrastructure Concerns

On March 2, Connor testified before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power to discuss Reclamation’s budget request and ongoing priorities.

During his testimony, he discussed the agency’s continued aging infrastructure concerns and the potential for extending repayment authority so water users are not required to meet these significant cost burdens up-front.

“Many smaller irrigation or water conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year incurred absent long-term financing assistance,” Connor said. “To address this issue, the administration is currently exploring strategies for helping these entities to rehabilitate these facilities.”

Connor noted that addressing this issue may include the potential use of existing authority under P.L. 111-11 to extend repayment of extraordinary maintenance costs on project facilities that would normally have to be paid in advance.

Irrigation Leader

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor

Other Highlights

The budget request contains $36 million in proposed spending on construction of rural water projects in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as well as $84 million for the dam safety program and $26 million for site security efforts.

The complete fiscal year 2012 Reclamation budget request can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/budget.

9

Questions to Consider When Financing an Infrastructure Project

By James W. Ziglar The successful financing of a new infrastructure project involves a number of decisions that must be made based on the particulars of the project being financed, and the experience, sophistication, financial strength and legal authorities of the public agency sponsor. The following are five areas of inquiry that should be addressed by a district as part of the project development process.

1. Does the project/district have the requisite creditworthiness to successfully finance the project?

Creditworthiness is the single most important factor in any analysis of the ability to finance an infrastructure project. Simply stated, creditworthiness reflects the ability to repay debt in a timely fashion based on the terms of the indebtedness. The creditworthiness of a project/district has a direct bearing on a district’s access to capital and its cost of money.

In the case of a project that is financed solely from revenues generated from the project, the measure of the creditworthiness is whether the revenues from the project are reliable, consistent, and adequate to fund all of the requirements with respect to operating the project and repaying the debt. The stronger the revenue stream, the greater the creditworthiness of the project.

In market terms, the creditworthiness of the project is measured by the ratings assigned by one or more nationally-recognized credit rating agencies (such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s).

If the project is to be financed with taxes, such as ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, or special assessments, or with a combination of taxes and project revenues, a number of other factors will be taken into account such as the economy in the area, the level of existing taxation, and prospects for growth in the tax base.

It is critical for a district that is contemplating the development and financing of a new project to identify and evaluate all potential revenue sources available to finance the project.

10

2. Does the district have the necessary legal authority to develop and finance the project, and what are the limits on that authority?

The ability of a local public entity to develop and finance an infrastructure project is derived from state and local laws and ordinances creating the entity (such as an irrigation district), and defining its powers.

While many people mistakenly believe that the ability to issue “tax-exempt” bonds derives from federal law, it is only the tax-exemption of the interest on those bonds that is governed by federal law. The basic authority of a district to incur indebtedness is found in state and local law.

Just as creditworthiness should be assessed as part of the development of a project, a district should have a full understanding of its ability (and the limitations on that ability) to develop a project and to incur indebtedness to finance the project. There are lawyers who specialize in working with public entities in financing infrastructure projects, and render legal opinions on the validity of bonds when they are issued.

These lawyers are known as “municipal bond counsel,” and they can be very helpful in determining the legal authority to finance a project and assessing the types of financing instruments that can be utilized. It is important to select a municipal bond counsel who has a market-recognized legal opinion and substantial experience in advising public-entity clients.

3. What form of indebtedness should be used in financing an infrastructure project?

Typically, when a district is contemplating the financing of an infrastructure project, the immediate response is to use “tax-exempt” bonds and, in many if not most, cases, that is the correct response. But there are other forms of indebtedness such as taxable bonds, certificates of participation, or particularly where the amount financed is small, privately placed loans (typically with local banks) that also may be attractive depending on the circumstances of the financing.

Irrigation Leader

In addition, depending on the type of project, there may be financing vehicles such as State Revolving Funds or even federal loan programs that are available.

It is important for a district to evaluate all of the opportunities that may be available for financing a project.

As noted above, tax-exempt bonds are, and have been for a long time, the primary financing instrument for public infrastructure projects. The federal tax exemption for interest paid on state and local government bonds is intended to provide a lower cost of borrowing for local agencies. Bondholders are willing to accept a lower interest rate because they know the interest they receive will not be taxed at the federal level. However, there are very strict rules imposed on the use of proceeds from tax-exempt bonds, particularly in situations in which a private entity is a significant beneficiary of the tax exemption.

These restrictions have inhibited local agencies from bringing in private partners to help develop, finance, and manage infrastructure projects. As a result, there has been growth in the use of taxable bonds to facilitate public-private partnerships. It should be noted, however, that state and local laws may also limit the participation of private entities in public projects.

This is an issue that must be evaluated on a project-byproject basis.

4. How much interest rate risk is the district willing and able to assume?

Interest on bonds or other forms of indebtedness is paid on either a fixed or floating rate basis. While choosing a fixed interest rate locks in the cost of money and provides certainty in planning debt payments, floating interest rate instruments provide the opportunity to lower the overall cost of money because interest rates are pegged to an index reflecting the short-term market, and are reset periodically.

However, floating rate debt (just like an adjustable rate mortgage in a home financing) presents the risk that short-term rates will rise rapidly or that required liquidity facilities will become unavailable or increase in cost significantly. Short-term, floating rate debt has been used very effectively by numerous municipal issuers over many years, but it is important to evaluate whether an issuer has the financial and political ability to accept such risk. This is a decision that should be made with the advice of a competent and experienced financial adviser, while also being mindful of the fiduciary duty that an agency has to the public it serves.

Irrigation Leader

5. Should a district retain a financial adviser to assist it with financing its project?

Generally, the answer is yes, in my opinion. The quality, sophistication, experience, and judgment of municipal financial advisers varies greatly, and it is important to select the most qualified adviser possible.

A good municipal financial adviser can assist the district in: • Evaluating the creditworthiness of the project.

• Determining the appropriate financing instrument(s) and methodologies.

• Assessing the risk tolerance of the district when determining whether to use a fixed rate or floating rate (or a combination thereof ) form of financing.

The adviser may also be able to help the district determine whether it is possible to “hedge” the risk inherent in floating rate financing.

• Helping the district to decide whether to sell its debt through a competitive bid process, an underwriting, or a private placement. In all cases, the adviser will assist the district in navigating the financing process and negotiating the best possible terms.

Public agencies bear a heavy fiduciary duty to the public when developing and financing infrastructure projects. It is important that all steps and decisions in the process be carefully analyzed and evaluated to ensure that the public’s interest is fully protected.

Jim Ziglar is senior counsel at Van Ness Feldman and a managing director at The Furman Group, in Washington, DC. He does not act as a financial adviser or municipal bond counsel. Ziglar spent over 20 years as an investment banker and legal adviser to public entities executing financing transactions, and also served as assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Department of the Interior during the Reagan Administration. He can be reached by phone at (202) 288-8747, or by e-mail at jwz@ziglargroup.com.

11

I

Levee Safety Committee Vice Chair Responds to Questions on Proposals, Application to Irrigation Canals

n 2009, the National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS) released recommendations aimed at creating a national levee safety program that would include the embankments of many irrigation canals in the West. The committee consists of officials representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, state and local governments, and private organizations.

The report has become a source of controversy for some western water users groups concerned that including water delivery conveyances in the program was not Congress’s intent when it authorized NCLS to provide its recommendations.

Other issues raised by users groups include a potential duplication of efforts with Reclamation’s recent canal safety initiative and apprehension that program standards would be tailored to flood control levees, not water delivery canals.

NCLS Vice Chair Eric Halpin responded to these issues and questions posed by Kris Polly, Irrigation Leader’s editorin-chief, following an NCLS stakeholder workshop in Boise, Idaho, on February 10, 2011. In addition to his role with NCLS, Halpin leads the Army Corps’ dam and levee safety programs and serves as the senior adviser to Corps leadership on safety issues and decisions.

Kris Polly: What is the purpose of NCLS and how was it established?

Eric Halpin: Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to stand up and lead a national committee for the express intent of giving it recommendations in the post-Katrina environment on what a national levee safety program should look like. That direction came from the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, and it laid out certain things for NCLS to accomplish. The committee worked very hard within some tight timelines to actually answer Congress in 180 days and say these are the best ideas on what should be included in a national levee safety program.

Since NCLS delivered its draft report in January 2009, it has been very engaged in answering some of the other questions that go along with that. What is the best way to strategically implement these ideas? What else didn’t we find out? Where else should we get feedback? So, part of what we are doing—as we’ve done here in Boise—is go out and get additional stakeholder feedback on what are they thinking about the recommendations.

Kris Polly: Is it NCLS’s recommendation to establish an independent levee safety commission with

12

jurisdiction over federal agencies with existing programs and expertise, and if so, how will that work?

Eric Halpin: NCLS recommended that there needed to be national leadership on the issue of levees. The ideal way to do that would be a new commission. But very clearly, NCLS recognized that would be very tough in the current economic environment—an assumption that has been validated by the feedback we have received. So the committee said if we kept the principles of a national program and national leadership, that program could be embedded in an existing agency.

To the question of whether a levee safety commission would have jurisdiction over other federal agencies with existing programs and expertise, this clearly brings up the idea that existing federal agencies like the Bureau of Reclamation bring wonderful expertise to the table and would add a lot to this process. Unfortunately, Reclamation was not included in the members named by Congress to NCLS. The issue of jurisdiction is actually pretty clear. The idea is not for a national commission to have jurisdiction over other federal agencies. However, the establishment of a national levee safety program would mean that all federal agencies would align in purpose, policy, and standards to this national ideal. That does not put one federal agency under the jurisdiction of another. It is just as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has environmental laws it implements that are far reaching and touch all federal agencies. That does not put EPA in a jurisdictional role over, say, the Bureau of Reclamation.

Kris Polly: Are irrigation canals considered levees?

Eric Halpin: NCLS first addressed this issue by trying to understand what Congress meant by saying that the definition of “levees” should include both traditional flood levees and structures along canals. NCLS looked at that, debated that, and essentially decided there are some instances in which a whole host of structures along canals— it’s not just irrigation canals, it may be flood canals or power canals that exist all around the country—would fall under that. And so, that was in our recommendations to Congress, that some structures along canals would be included.

However, we did provide two specific exemptions.

One was based on size and risk. A second was based on whether another federal agency was already overseeing and managing those risks within an existing safety program.

Kris Polly: The Bureau of Reclamation received $10 million in stimulus funds to enhance its canal inspection and safety program, and has used the funds to inspect over 200 segments of irrigation canals and ensure public safety in urbanized areas. Would such an extensive inspection program satisfy the intent of the NCLS? Eric Halpin: The national committee has emphasized public safety as its most important objective, and we are supportive of any program that furthers that goal.

However, we don't equate an initial inspection with a safety program. Inspection is only one element of a robust safety program, and the visual observations of the infrastructure can be a good indicator of its operations and maintenance effectiveness, but you need a more in-depth understanding of the condition of a structure to make an accurate assessment of its reliability—particularly where public safety is involved. Also, it must be a periodic and continuing activity, not a one-time activity. A good safety program certainly relies on periodic inspection, but also needs standards, risk assessment, risk communication, and the ability to fund repairs. The national committee has not received information on the Bureau’s inspection program, but it sounds like it’s a good first step.

Kris Polly: Do you envision recommendations from a

national commission on the operation, maintenance, and design standards of irrigation canals?

Eric Halpin: I think there is only one way to proceed with the inclusion of structures along canals in the national levee safety program, and that is with the good input of those people that work day in and day out with the canals.

It is going to be people at different levels of government and industry involved in canal work that will help shape what those standards should look like.

Kris Polly: Will there be national flood insurance

required of those who live or own property within the flood zone of a canal?

Eric Halpin: NCLS recommended that mandatory,

risk-based flood insurance not apply to canals because we were very concerned about doing an unintended transfer of risk from those that benefit from canals to those that have the canals close to them. So the short answer is no, there is no mandatory requirement in our recommendations for that. However, we still think that behind a broad array of infrastructure, flood insurance remains a good idea—just not mandatory.

Kris Polly: What is your message to the 600-plus

irrigation district managers in the 17 western states who receive and distribute their water through canals?

Eric Halpin: First of all, NCLS has a great picture of how valuable what they do is to the nation, and certainly there is an additional level of feedback the committee needs to get from those irrigators and operators on what its recommendations mean to them. Today in Boise, we got a lot of that feedback, and it was very positive.

The bigger message is that our emphasis is on public safety. I think at the end of the day, many of our goals align very much. Many of our recommendations would make a lot of sense for canal owners. However, there are some significant differences, and irrigators and people that run canal programs need to be part of defining how we describe those differences and how we adjust to them.

Concerning the inclusion of structures along canals in a National Levee Safety Program, the national committee took the perspective of the people living and working behind them. Differentiating the sources of inundation from such structures, and the losses and damages they can cause, loses some meaning to those on the receiving end.

And our view is that it is not just about the owner having a program of assessment and improvement for the structure, but for the affected population to be aware of the potential risk posed so that they can participate in the management of the risk—both as individuals and communities. Our approach is to hold public safety paramount.

During the Boise stakeholder meeting, attendees representing irrigation interests also expressed concern about the breath of inclusion regarding structures along canals—after all, many are small structures in sparsely populated agricultural areas. Because canals have the unique ability to turn off the supply of water, there may be ways for the national committee to consider broadening the two existing exclusions (currently either size/risk or falling under an existing safety program) to address these smaller, primarily agricultural canal structures. We would welcome specific feedback from the irrigation stakeholders on what such exclusions might look like, including the supporting rationale. On the other hand, our field trip to the New York canal in Boise made a real impression on committee members regarding the benefits our recommendations on a National Levee Safety Program would offer for such highly urbanized, aging infrastructure and the people that live and work below it.

Eric Halpin is the vice chair of the National Committee on Levee Safety. He also leads the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam and Levee safety programs, and serves as the senior adviser to Corps leadership on safety issues and decisions.

13

Colorado Irrigators Form “Super Ditch” to Combine Water Transfer Negotiation Efforts

C

iting continued urban growth and the inability to meet increasing demands on water supply, Colorado municipalities have been purchasing and permanently fallowing irrigated farmland throughout the Lower Arkansas River Valley for years. However, hoping to break this “buy and dry” cycle, a group of irrigators organized the Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company in 2008 to pool future water transfer negotiating efforts.

“The previous dry up had left entire towns virtually dead, because municipalities bought up the most senior ditches and, in some cases, essentially the entire ditch,” said Peter Nichols, special counsel to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which organized the effort.

“Recognizing that cities would need agricultural water to meet future needs, we knew another approach was necessary to create a win-win solution.”

By 2007, Colorado municipalities had purchased 25 percent of irrigated farmland in the valley—around 80,000 acres—to claim water rights for municipal use.

Additionally, Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Committee released reports indicating that the state projected water shortages in the next 40 years and concluding that drying agricultural land was the default solution, foreseeing the statewide loss of an additional 500,000 acres (20 percent) of all irrigated acreage.

Seeking an alternative water transfer program, irrigators traveled to California’s Palo Verde Valley for inspiration.

The Palo Verde Irrigation District successfully brokered a cooperative, long-term water leasing program with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 2005, which has become a model for successful water transfer partnerships in the West. During the van ride back to the airport, the “Super Ditch” concept was born.

“The farmers came back from Palo Verde quite enthused,” said Nichols, noting that the program came 14

together quickly once organizing efforts began. “People said it would take us 10 years, and it took only 16 months.”

While the program is not yet fully operational, Super Ditch recently negotiated preliminary, 40-year leasing agreements with several municipal water providers. More than 80 percent of Arkansas Valley shareholders have indicated an interest in these leases.

Though complete details of the program still remain to be worked out, Super Ditch irrigators anticipate a program functioning similar to that of their colleagues in the Palo Verde Valley—a rotational leasing program in which specific parcels of land are fallowed for set periods to maintain their productivity. Final agreements will be made directly between individual irrigators and municipalities following completion of the group negotiation, and participants anticipate that no more than 33 percent of land will be fallowed at a time, with perhaps half of that land being low productivity.

As part of its efforts, Super Ditch commissioned a study to examine the regional economic impact of a rotational land-fallowing program as compared to traditional buy and dry water transfers. The study focused on “tipping points”— essentially the points at which businesses no longer have enough customers to remain in operation. While the study is currently in peer review, its results appear to indicate that rotational land-fallowing programs produce a net economic gain when implemented in place of buy and dry.

Ultimately, Super Ditch’s success hinges on the ability of Lower Arkansas Valley landowners to work together. “Buy and dry will continue, or we can figure out a better way to do it,” said Nichols. “The Super Ditch gives irrigators and rural communities a chance to survive.”

Peter Nichols is special counsel to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and an attorney with Trout, Raley, Montaño, Witwer & Freeman in Denver, Colorado. He can be reached by phone at (303) 339-5825, or by e-mail at pnichols@troutlaw.com.

Irrigation Leader

Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center Aims to Promote Sustainability Goals

W

hen Monsanto opened its Water Utilization Learning Center in Gothenburg, Nebraska, almost three years ago, it hoped to provide an unparalleled demonstration facility promoting sustainable water conservation goals and furthering the company’s commitment to doubling crop yields by 2030.

“Our primary objective is closely tied to our commitment to sustainable yields,” said Chandler Mazour, the director of the 320-acre facility, noting that reducing the amounts of marginal inputs per unit of output— including water—by more than one-third is essential to increasing crop productivity.

The center is effectively the embodiment of a systemsbased approach to agriculture that includes genetics, biotechnological traits, and advanced agronomic practices as its central tenets. The approach traces its roots to the 1930s, when double-crop hybrids entered the marketplace.

“If you look at historic corn yields from the mid-1800s to the 1930s, the average was relatively flat at 27 bushels per acre,” said Mazour. “The hybridization of seed corn started increasing yields over the years.”

The more formal practice of systems-based agriculture was shaped in the 1950s, when gains in single-cross hybrids, irrigated acreage, better herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer took hold, causing yields to double by the early 1950s to the 1970s. Then, from the 1970s to 1996, yields increased on average by 1.5 bushels per year. More recently, the practice of adding a third component to the agricultural system, biotechnological traits, increased yields at an average rate of 2.6 bushels per year from 1996 to 2009.

Irrigation Leader

Monsanto’s systems-based approach will soon add a drought-tolerant trait that is currently in the regulatory stage of the development process. This biotech trait will be combined with strong genetics and drought-mitigating agronomic recommendations to help reduce the impact of drought on corn. The impact of this drought-tolerant system on crop yields was tested in a recent demonstration project conducted at the learning center.

In their demonstration, center staff planted four groups of corn, each consisting of 12 rows. In the first group, staff chose to manage the crop poorly. In the second group, staff made good genetic, biotech trait, and agronomic management decisions that can be made in the winter months. In the third group, staff made good decisions that can be made during the growing season. In the final group, the staff applied the same decisions as in the third, but added the drought-tolerant trait for a complete system to help manage drought.

While above-normal rainfall prevented a more robust analysis, the demonstration did show that inclusion of the trait in periods of excessive rain did not have a negative impact.

In addition to its demonstrations, the learning center hosts guests from around the world and serves as a primary venue for Monsanto to continue its educational initiatives.

“We’ve had almost 9,000 visitors from 20 countries since June 2009,” said Mazour. “Our objective was to help farmers maybe learn something that they can take back to their farms to grow yields sustainably.”

For more information on Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center in Gothenburg, Nebraska, visit its website at http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/gothenberglearning-center.aspx.

15

The Nebraska-based Upper Republican Natural Resources District recently purchased 3,260 irrigated acres, watered by 24 pivot systems, that will be permanently retired to help boost stream flows and aid compliance with the Republican River Compact between Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas.

Nebraska Project Poised to Aid Interstate Water Co

N

ebraska’s Upper Republican Natural Resources District (URNRD) has approved the largest project of its kind in the state to reduce water consumption and enhance stream flows when necessary to stay in compliance with the Republican River Compact, which includes Kansas and Colorado. The goal of this project is to ensure that farmers do not face a widespread irrigation shutdown during a drought if additional water is needed to meet Republican River Compact requirements.

The district in February approved the purchase of approximately 4,000 acres, 3,260 of which are irrigated, that will be permanently retired from irrigation. Only during dry times, when additional water is needed to stay in compliance with the compact, a lesser amount of water than what historically has been pumped to irrigate the 3,260 acres will be piped into an adjacent creek that flows into the nearby Republican River in southwest Nebraska.

The project could potentially close the largest expected gap between actual water consumption and what is allowed under the compact that the district may face during dry years—roughly 10,000 acre-feet.

The total cost of the project, including land and installation of an approximately 10-mile pipeline, is expected to be between $12 million and $15 million. If the project relied solely on permanent retirement of irrigated acres to achieve a similar result, the cost would be roughly

16

twice as much.

“This project is a cost-effective way to stay in compliance with the compact while protecting our water resources and keeping farmers in the basin in business,” said Jasper Fanning, PhD, URNRD’s general manager.

Under the Republican River Compact, 49 percent of river water is allocated to Nebraska, 40 percent to Kansas, and 11 percent to Colorado. The augmentation project is one of several steps envisioned in new water management plans crafted cooperatively by natural resources districts and the state to stay in compliance with the compact in both the short and long term. Other actions include reducing pumping districtwide so that depletions to stream flow caused by ground water pumping do not increase.

If drought and state projections suggest action is needed to stay in compliance, the URNRD will now be able to use water from the newly purchased land instead of interrupting ground water supply to area farmers near the Republican River and its tributaries.

“We believe this project has the potential to significantly aid efforts to stay in compliance with the Republican River Compact and the local integrated management plan,” said Brian Dunnigan, director of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. “This is the type of initiative needed to help farmers throughout the Republican River Basin.”

Irrigation Leader

Jasper Fanning, Upper Republican Natural Resources District general manager, explaining augmentation project during public meeting.

Photo courtesy of Russ Pankonin/ Imperial, Nebraska, Republican Newspaper

ompact, Protect Producers Total project costs are being funded with Nebraska’s unique occupational tax on irrigated land that natural resources districts, which manage ground water in the state, are authorized to levy. Originally authorized in 2007 and modified in 2010, the occupational tax is intended to fund projects aiming to comply with formal water management plans, such as those in place in the Republican River Basin that seek compliance with the compact.

Fanning said the URNRD, which was the first in the state to regulate ground water use, remains committed to water conservation. The conservation-minded project will help with the ongoing transition into tighter water regulations that will become more economically feasible as drought-resistant crops and other technologies are developed. “It doesn’t negate the need for reduced water use to stay in compliance,” Fanning said of the project.

“The district . . . will continue to be at the regulatory forefront of ground water management.”

Jasper Fanning is the general manager of the Upper Republican Natural Resources District in Imperial, Nebraska.

He can be reached by phone at (308) 882-5173, or by e-mail at jasperfanning@urnrd.org.

Irrigation Leader

A U.S. Geological Survey stream flow gauge on Rock Creek in southwest Nebraska will measure increased flows expected from the augmentation project.

17

Arizona’s Agri-Business Council Seeks to Ensure Continued Supply of Water and Power in Support of Irrigators

By Chris Udall ormed in 1978 to present a united front when responding to proposed legislation, the Agri-Business Council of Arizona (ABC) represents the interests of the state’s water and agricultural community. Members include not only irrigation districts, but also growers, equipment suppliers, seed companies, agricultural processers, commodity groups, trade associations, agribusiness financiers, power districts, engineering firms, and universities.

This unique membership contingent allows ABC to draw from an array of talented people with deep roots in all aspects of irrigated agriculture in Arizona. Members are represented on the council’s 23-person executive committee, which helps steer the direction of the organization and sets legislative priorities.

Recently, these priorities have included everything from responding to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit that will cover the application of herbicides on or near irrigation conveyances, to representing Arizona’s interests in Hoover Dam power allocation. Additionally, ABC is working to ensure the continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station, which is threatened by a potential EPA proposal to limit emissions from the coal-fired power plant.

F

Photos of Agri-Business Council members with colleagues from Sonora, Mexico during joint tour of Central Arizona Project and the Tessera Solar field in Peoria, Arizona.

18

Irrigation Leader

Navajo Generating Station

The Navajo Generating Station (NGS) provides most of the power to the Central Arizona Project, which pumps Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona.

Originally constructed in lieu of additional dams, the NGS is a critical element in the state’s water conveyance infrastructure, and EPA proposals could require a $1 billion-plus price tag to meet visibility requirements.

The shutdown of the NGS—or an unaffordable fix—would be devastating to all users of Central Arizona Project (CAP)-delivered water, including the agricultural sector in central Arizona, as many growers and ranchers would no longer be able to afford the cost of CAP water.

ABC has also been working with the Technological Institute of Sonora in Mexico, irrigation districts, and agribusiness interests in the State of Sonora to form a counterpart organization called the Agribusiness Council of Sonora. Such an organization provides a forum for private agricultural interests in Sonora to meet with colleagues in Arizona to talk water and agribusiness. ABC hopes that the two organizations will be able to work to find ways to mutually benefit agricultural interests on both sides of the border. Such cooperation will become Irrigation Leader

especially important as Arizona continues to urbanize and more produce is increasingly grown in Sonora and other states in Mexico.

ABC’s executive committee meets once a month in a different part of the state, traveling to the membership.

ABC also hosts an annual business meeting, as well as a golf tournament named the H2Open. ABC is the state’s representative to the board of the National Water Resources Association and is actively involved with the Family Farm Alliance, which has organizing roots in Arizona.

Chris Udall is the executive director of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona in Mesa, Arizona.

He can be reached by phone at (480) 558-5301, or by e-mail at chris@agribusinessarizona.org. For more information about ABC or to join the council, visit http://www.agribusinessarizona.org.

19

District Focus Oregon Irrigation District Fears Water Shut-Offs, Advocates for Meaningful Recovery Projects

By Frank Hammerich eginning in July 2009, a one-and-a-halfyear shutoff of water to the Langell Valley Irrigation District (LVID), which manages a division of Oregon and California’s Klamath Project, left 7,400 acres of land without water and resulted in over $1 million in mitigation efforts by the federal government. The shut-off was coordinated to meet minimum requirements for suckerfish downriver in Tule Lake, even though almost 70,000 acre-feet of water—almost enough for an entire irrigation

B

20

season—had been dumped earlier in the decade despite adequate storage capacity.

The money used to compensate landowners impacted by the water shutdown could have been better spent on meaningful recovery efforts long before the situation became so dire that a shutdown was required. For example, a recent low-dollar proposal by LVID that focused on gaining traction in fish recovery efforts was rejected after accumulating the support of a broad array of area stakeholders.

Federal and state agencies have spent millions of

Irrigation Leader

dollars and used countless acre-feet of flows on efforts that have made virtually no headway because they do not focus on actual recovery of the fish. Solving these issues will require all parties involved to refocus their energies on projects that will have actual results and are not simply vehicles for federal control of water rights.

However, LVID foresees an even greater threat to its mission if additional water is necessary to supply the Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuges. Because the refuge does not maintain a prior water right, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement calls for “other sources” to be used for supplies in a short year.

Yet the agreement, to which LVID and nearby Horsefly Irrigation District are not parties because they maintain distinctly different issues from their brethren elsewhere in the Klamath Project, is silent as to where any shortfalls will be found. LVID is concerned that it will be left holding the bag as the last remaining possible supplier of water to the refuge, and district landowners will suffer as a result.

LVID sits at the headwaters of the Lost River and is the first district in the Klamath Project to divert water. Though landowners primarily use flood irrigation techniques, the Klamath Project is about 90 percent efficient because water is used multiple times as it continues to flow downriver.

This raises important concerns as LVID considers conservation initiatives, because any water conserved and retained by the district will not continue downriver toward other districts and the refuge. Additionally, there would be significant impact on local ground water users who could

see wells dry up if water seepage from open canals and flood irrigation is eliminated.

The district faces further apprehensions as it seeks to comply with total maximum daily load requirements, even though its location at the headwaters would suggest that loadings should not be a problem.

Effectively, LVID is being asked to meet requirements that are not even met in nature—further jeopardizing its mission.

Overall, LVID has learned to remain vigilant as it seeks to fulfill its charge to deliver water to area landowners while still maintaining compliance with relevant environmental regulations. While recovery of species and other environmental quality initiatives are important, they must be implemented with clear goals in mind, and LVID will continue to be proactive as it seeks to ensure area water rights are not impinged.

Frank Hammerich is the manager of the Langell Valley Irrigation District in Bonanza, Oregon.

He can be reached by phone at (541) 545-6344.

Irrigation Leader Advertising Works

“

We are getting business from your magazine!

Please continue our ad. ~Jill Carding, AquaLastic®

”

Irrigation Leader directly markets your message to the decision-makers on

irrigation and other water infrastructure projects. Hard copies of Irrigation Leader are mailed to the 600-plus irrigation district general managers and their respective boards of directors in the 17 western states; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Congress; and a variety of western water-related organizations, engineering firms, and interested individuals. In other words, advertising in Irrigation Leader is like having over 6,500 people stop by your vendor booth.

For information on advertisement rates, packages, and placement, please contact our office by e-mailing Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Irrigation Leader

21

District Focus

Yuma County Water Users’ Association Manages Water for High-Value Irrigated Farmland

By Tom Davis frequently tell people that if they have ever purchased a bagged salad from their local supermarket during the winter months, chances are that its contents were grown in Arizona's Yuma County Valley, home to some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. Yuma is the location for many of the world’s largest produce companies that process locally grown produce and distribute it throughout the country thanks to sophisticated packaging and shipping facilities. Due to location, climate, and the availability of Colorado River water, Yuma Valley farmers grow crops year-round. Leafy green produce is grown in the winter months, and desert durum wheat, cotton, and melons are grown during the remainder of the year.

Since its founding in 1903, the Yuma County Water Users’ Association (YCWUA) has been responsible for delivering water to area irrigators in the Yuma Valley. Part of the first Reclamation project constructed to divert Colorado River water into Arizona, the Yuma Project’s water diversions were originally made possible by the Laguna Dam—the first dam constructed on the Colorado River. The dam diverted water into California through the Yuma Main Canal and eventually back into Arizona through a siphon under the Colorado River.

However, diversions from the Laguna Dam were discontinued in 1941, when Imperial Dam and the All-American Canal, constructed upstream of Laguna, became Yuma’s primary diversion point.

Today, water is diverted into the Yuma Main Canal from the All-American Canal in California, drops 31 feet and through a hydroelectric generating plant, and then runs 4 miles in the Yuma Main Canal and through the siphon under the Colorado River into Arizona. A gravity flow canal system delivers the

I

22

water throughout the valley.

Despite the significant repayment obligations to the federal government associated with the construction of this incredible project, YCWUA remained an association of local irrigators even as comparable groups throughout the West converted into irrigation districts. Because the federal government retained first lien on the lands served by Reclamation projects, many water users associations sought refuge as state-incorporated irrigation districts to take the burden of project cost repayment off of area farmers. In contrast, Yuma farmers felt that they would be able to readily pay off the government due to their ability to farm year-round, and never sought to incorporate a district.

Despite the profit-making capability of area farmland, urban growth in the valley remains on the horizon. However, based on an agreement among the association, local municipalities, and Reclamation, agricultural water rights transfer to the city when new subdivisions are built on land previously reserved for agriculture and annexed into the city. The cities pay the association’s annual water assessment, and the city’s water utility can pump the associated water from the canal through its treatment plant before delivering it back to the subdivision as potable water.

In addition to its water delivery responsibilities, YCWUA manages a 4 megawatt hydroelectric plant on the 31-foot drop between the diversion from the All-American Canal and the Yuma Main Canal. Not only does the association sell the power it generates at the facility to retail power suppliers, it also sells high-value renewable energy credits to those suppliers in California needing them to meet stringent state requirements.

YCWUA has also explored installing additional hydropower potential at the point where water Irrigation Leader

is delivered from the Yuma Main Canal back into the Colorado River for delivery of Mexico’s Colorado River rights consistent with treaty obligations. At this location, the association maintains a 12-foot drop between its canal and the river, and already holds a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license to install a generating plant if the initial construction becomes economical.

Importantly, YCWUA does not have to engage in many of the environmental battles waged in other irrigation projects, thanks to the Multi-Species Conservation Program. Funded through a cost-share among the federal government, Arizona, California, and Nevada, the program is intended to proactively protect the lower Colorado River environment, recover endangered and threatened species, and avoid the listing of additional species. The efforts of this program have aided the river’s ecosystem and kept area irrigators out of court.

The Colorado River forms the north and west boundaries of the Yuma Valley. Along this 30-mile boundary, the valley is protected from flooding by a levee constructed by Reclamation. Twenty-five miles of this west boundary borders Mexico. The Colorado River forms the international boundary. The border fence, constructed by the Bush Administration, runs along this reach of the levee. The fence provides security for farmers and

Irrigation Leader

association personnel working along this area. Association personnel work closely with U.S. Border Patrol personnel to assist in ensuring security along this reach of the border.

However, government regulation in certain areas remains a significant threat to YCWUA’s continued operating capacity. Specifically, the association remains concerned with (1) the cost impact of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increasing proposed regulations, (2) the cost impact of National Committee on Levee Safety recommendations, and (3)the requirements of the new healthcare law, which will increase personnel costs that could force budget tightening and personnel reductions in an already difficult economic climate.

Tom Davis is the general manager of the Yuma County Water Users’ Association in Yuma, Arizona. He can be reached by phone at (928) 627-8824, or by e-mail at tdavis@ycwua.org.

Water Law

The National Committee on Levee Safety:

Why Does it Matter and Where Is it Going?

C

By Bill McDonald ongress enacted the National Levee Safety Act of 2007 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the flood control levees and floodwater conveyance and drainage canals in New Orleans. The act created the Committee on Levee Safety and directed the committee to “develop recommendations for a national levee safety program, including a strategic plan for implementation of the program.”

This National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS) is composed of members representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and nonfederal representatives from state and local governments, as well as private industry. The chairman and vicechairman are both from the Army Corps. There are no representatives of western water users on the NCLS, although there is one state agency representative from California and one from Colorado who, pursuant to the 2007 act, are designated as “representatives of state levee safety agencies.”

The committee released its draft report in January 2009 and provided it to congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Army Corps’ civil works program.

In addition, the staffs of these committees have been briefed by NCLS, and committee representatives testified before Congress. In May 2010, NCLS also started holding stakeholder outreach workshops around the country to present the recommendations in its draft report, as well as invite public input and discussion. The most recent one was held in Boise in February.

NCLS is now in the process of drafting proposed legislation intended to implement certain recommendations in its draft report. Other recommendations can be implemented pursuant to existing authorities. NCLS hopes that its proposed legislation will be considered as a component of the current Water Resources Development Act bill, which authorizes Army Corps projects.

How Did Canals Become Levees?

Those of us in the water resources business in the West have a clear idea of the difference between a flood control “levee” and a water delivery “canal.”

Congress, unfortunately, was not so clear.

The 2007 act initially defines the term “levee” in a typical and straightforward manner—levees are

24

structures, both federally and non federally owned, that provide flood protection from weather events.

However, the act states, “the term includes structures along canals that constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water loadings but that do not constitute a barrier across a watercourse.” Not exactly a model of clear legislative drafting.

NCLS was required, therefore, to interpret this ambiguous language. It concluded, reportedly with some input from the staffs of the two congressional committees of jurisdiction, that the phrase “canals that constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water loadings” included water delivery canals, not just floodwater conveyance and drainage canals like those in New Orleans. Thus, embankments, walls, or other structures forming part of a water delivery canal’s bank are treated as levees for the purposes of NCLS’s draft report, since they are “structures along” the canal—even though water delivery canals have nothing to do with the type of canal that failed in Hurricane Katrina and that is often part of a levee flood protection systems.

Thus, all of NCLS’s recommendations regarding levees also apply to the above-grade embankments, walls, and other structures that form segments of many water delivery canals throughout the West and the rest of the nation. Its recommendations also apply to all levees, not just those that are federally owned.

NCLS’s Recommendations

In its draft report, NCLS made 20 recommendations for the development and implementation of a new National Levee Safety Program. The core recommendations call for the creation of an independent National Levee Safety Commission, which would develop levee safety standards “for common, uniform use by all federal, state and local agencies”; inventory and inspect all levees on a periodic basis; and develop national tolerable risk guidelines for all such structures. NCLS also recommends that implementation of the program be delegated to those states that can perform the basic functions of the program, which it describes as “legislating statutory authorities; implementing rules, regulations, and procedures; and securing resources for these activities.”

While these recommendations apply to levees and to the embankment and structural sections of any kind of canal, NCLS does recommend that both should be exempt from the proposed national safety standards if they are not: Irrigation Leader

• Part of a federal flood control project • A levee accredited by FEMA • Greater than 3 feet high • Protecting a population greater than 50 people • Protecting an area greater than 1,000 acres NCLS also states that to avoid duplicative regulations, canals already “regulated by the federal government” should be deemed to comply with its recommended program if a federal agency’s safety criteria meet or exceed the yet-to-be-determined national safety standards. Interestingly, the draft report gives as an example a nonfederally owned power canal regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but does not mention water delivery canals owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Thoughts on NCLS’s Recommendations

Water users have expressed concern about NCLS’s conclusion that the word “canals,” as used in the above-quoted language in the 2007 act, meant not just floodwater conveyance and drainage canals, but also water delivery canals, thus making the embankment sections of such canals levees subject to the NCLS’s recommendations. I share that concern.

I believe that a more reasonable interpretation of the phrase would have been that it was intended to encompass only floodwater conveyance and drainage canals (several examples of which are shown in pictures in the NCLS’s draft report). I reach this conclusion because I believe the statutory phrase in question, when placed in the context of the events that led to the 2007 act, is best read as follows: “The term [levees] includes structures along [those kinds of ] canals that constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water loadings [than are levees,] but that do not constitute a barrier across a watercourse.” This interpretation makes far more sense given that it was the floodwater conveyance and drainage canals that failed during Hurricane Katrina and were the focus of attention as Congress considered the 2007 act, not water delivery canals in the West.

But at this point, it really does not make much difference what the 2007 act meant. Even accepting NCLS’s interpretation of this ambiguous phrase and, therefore, the scope of its previous deliberations, the issue now before the NCLS is what to recommend to Congress in the way of new legislation. The definitions in the 2007 act in no way bind NCLS. Committee members are free to recommend new definitions in any legislation they may propose, narrowing the scope of any proposed future programs relative to the scope of the 2007 act.

Irrigation Leader

At this point, NCLS should not be wed to its interpretation of the 2007 act’s definitions, but rather should focus on the real issue—whether water delivery canals should be addressed as part of the national program of safety standards being recommended by the NCLS, or whether there are reasons to treat levees and water delivery canals separately in terms of future safety standards and risk management. To take the question one step further, is there even a compelling case for having federally promulgated national safety standards for water delivery canals, whether done as a part of a levee safety program or as a stand-alone program for water delivery canals only?

Apart from NCLS’s interpretation of the 2007 act, its rationale for having the proposed national safety standards for levees apply to structures along water delivery canals, not just structures along floodwater conveyance and drainage canals, is that the embankment sections of water delivery canals can and do fail, just like levees. NCLS further notes, quite correctly, that the increasing urbanization of the West has resulted in development below irrigation canals that used to run through rural areas, thus increasing the amount of property and number of lives at risk in the event of a canal failure.

It does not automatically follow, however, that the public safety risks presented by federal and nonfederal water delivery canals should be addressed as part of the proposed National Levee Safety Program under the jurisdiction of a new, independent federal commission.

Indeed, in my opinion, there are policy reasons and practical political considerations for not including water delivery canals in the legislation to be proposed by NCLS. As a matter of policy, there are major institutional differences between the situation with respect to levees and that of water delivery canals, that argue for treating them separately. Levees often come as “systems,” with what is done upstream having an impact on downstream hydrology and hydraulics and, therefore, levee design.

NCLS rightly recognized this fact when it observed that one of the principles that it followed in developing its recommendations was, “Levees are most effective when managed as physical and political systems, not as individual reaches.” One of the other principles that it articulated is that investing in maintaining the reliability of levees should be a national priority because they “protect” other critical infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, hospitals, and wastewater treatment facilities) in many communities.

I would submit that water delivery canals are not encompassed by either of these two principles. First, such canals do not create, with a few rare exceptions, 25

the potential for systemic failures. Each embankment section of a water delivery canal is essentially a standalone feature whose integrity is not dependent on how other sections perform, let alone how other canals perform. This is very different than with levees. As a corollary, water delivery canals, because they are essentially stand-alone features, do not present the kind of “political systems” that levees present. Finally, water delivery canals do not “protect” communities and their infrastructure. They provide a very different kind of service.

Levees have been specifically designed to provide protection from flooding and make development behind them possible. That is not what has happened with canals. Urbanization has occurred with or without canals present. Furthermore, there are very different communities of interest involved in levee and canal issues. Mixing them together is not conducive to addressing either set of issues. It also risks having the issues of urbanization below water delivery canals not adequately addressed, as they are likely to be dwarfed by levee issues if handled by a single national commission.

Another policy reason for not including water delivery canals in NCLS’s proposed legislation is that the Bureau of Reclamation already has the authority to address the canals owned by it, and inspections of those embankment sections of canals located in urban areas are in process. Potential safety problems will undoubtedly be identified in some places. However, when identified, the issue will not be a lack of engineering expertise or design standards, but rather how to finance the necessary improvements. A new national commission promulgating national safety standards doesn’t solve that problem.

Reclamation, of course, doesn’t manage the nonfederal water delivery canals in the West, so what about those? My preliminary judgment is that there is not a pressing national interest, particularly in these austere budget times, in the public safety issues associated with nonfederally owned water delivery canals in the West. Perhaps a model statute and model code of safety standards for the structures along water delivery canals would be of use to the responsible state agencies. But they should be models, not nationally required programs and standards, that states can adopt, refine, or elect not to use. The public safety issues presented by water delivery canals are very localized issues. They should be for the states, not the federal government, to address.

As for practical political considerations, including water delivery canals in proposed legislation would likely trigger dual authorizing committee jurisdiction 26

in both the Senate and House, which could impede moving a bill forward. The NCLS should keep its eye on the critical issue—levees and floodwater conveyance canals and drains, not water delivery canals—or risk not moving anything through Congress.

The public safety risks from water delivery canals, while real, are minor compared with the public safety risks associated with inadequately designed and maintained levees. The property damages and loss of life that have resulted from levee failures and development in the floodplain are many orders of magnitude greater than the losses that have been incurred from water delivery canals failing.

Levee reliability and floodplain management issues are urgent and growing, as NCLS amply demonstrates in its draft report. They need to be addressed and should be the focus of attention. It would be a shame to fail to address the very large, complicated, and pressing nationwide problems presented by levees, and the associated issues of floodplain management and the national flood insurance program, because NCLS brought in a tangential issue regarding water delivery canals that generated opposition to its efforts.

Conclusion

As NCLS states in its draft report, “We view the report as the beginning—not the final word—in a national dialogue.” As it now receives public input from its outreach workshops, NCLS needs to evaluate that input and reconsider any of its draft recommendations that are being questioned or for which suggestions and refinements have been offered.

Its final recommendations will come in the form of the legislation that it proposes to Congress. That proposal need not, and should not, define “levees” to include any structures along, or forming the banks of, federal or nonfederal water delivery canals.

J. William “Bill” McDonald has extensive experience in western water resources management, having served for 11 years as the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, followed by 20 years as a regional director, assistant and deputy commissioner, and acting commissioner in the Bureau of Reclamation. He now has his own consulting firm, McDonald Water Policy Consulting, LLC, in Boise, Idaho. He can be contacted by phone at (208) 859-2534 or by e-mail at McDWaterPolicy@aol.com.

Irrigation Leader

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

Made in America • Over 85% recycled USA waste products.

• 20+ year life.

• Can be used on concrete, earth and metal • Simple, quick canal preparation saves time and money.

• Incredible tear and damage resistance.

• In case of rare damage, can be easily patch repaired.

• It can be installed by irrigation district’s own crew, using basic equipment.

SAVE 30% to 60% ON CANAL-LINING Left, The AquaLastic Canal Wrap, at the entrance to a tin flume at Columbia Irrigation District, WA. The earthen canal was leaking water and potentially compromising a road below. Both the entrance and flume have previously been repaired with AquaLastic®, the 660 ft. flume having been repaired back in 1997 and in excellent condition 14 years later.

AquaLastic® - CanalWrap™ AquaLastic® is the registered trademark property of Hydro Consulting LLC 615 S. Oregon Ave, Pasco, WA 99301

Irrigation Leader

Contact Customer Assistance Team:

949-394-4228 1800-735-1118

27

The Innovators

Orthman Strip-Tillage System Promotes Water Conservation, Cost Savings

F

armers have long coped with the soil moisture impact of multiple passes through their fields carrying tillage, fertilization, and planting equipment. Each successive pass exposes the soil to additional air, which leads to drying and, ultimately, the need for additional irrigation to ensure crops are productive.

However, a strip-tillage system designed by Orthman Manufacturing aims to cut down the number of trips necessary to farm. The 1tRIPr is a preplant tillage tool that provides the ability to combine strip-till soil management, nutrient placement, and seedbed preparation in a single pass through the field. Some farmers in the Corn Belt also attach a planter to the tiller so only one pass is necessary, though most farmers generally take a second pass for planting.

“The best way for Corn Belt farmers is to attach a planter to the 1tRIPr and take it all out in one pass,” said Mike Petersen, a precision tillage agronomist with Orthman who previously spent 33 years as a soil scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “However, some growers feel that is too much of a train and does not fit their management scheme . . . so about 80 percent of the time they split it apart and it is a two-pass operation.”

Petersen indicated that the water savings associated with using the 1tRIPr can be between 1 and 7 inches, representing significant cost savings to irrigated farmers. “All farmers are managing water that they are receiving,” he said. “We’re just finding that the irrigated farmer is becoming more advanced because he has to manage water from the clouds and water from irrigation.”

Strip-till water savings are achieved by allowing roots to grow deeper in the ground. “Plants are healthier with a larger rooting system,” Petersen said. “Instead of only 36 inches of root zone, strip tilling can provides 60 inches of root zone . . . that’s equivalent to 1 to 2 inches of water gained by going deeper.”

In addition to the water savings, the 1tRIPr is designed to reduce diesel costs with fewer trips to the field. “We’ve gotten it down to 2¼ gallons of diesel fuel per acre to bring a crop to harvest,” Petersen said.

Orthman manufactures 1tRIPrs capable of servicing as many as 24 rows, and as few as 2 rows, with the narrowest land dimension at 20 inches and the widest at 1 meter. Additionally, the 1tRIPr requires a tractor with an engine that can provide 30 horsepower per row to be effective, given the 10-inch depth of the tilling shank.

For more information on the Orthman 1tRIPr visit Orthman Manufacturing’s website at http://www.orthmanag.com, or its precision tillage website at http://www.precisiontillage.com.

28

Irrigation Leader

Fontanelle’s Aqua View Project Targets Water Savings, Increase Profitability

W

hen Fontanelle launched its AquaView initiative last year, it aimed to allow growers to maximize the value of their crops and simultaneously reduce their water use. Using moisture probe technology, among other water-saving ingredients, the new program helps growers to obtain previously unavailable insight into the water requirements of their crops, which leads to increased yields and conserves water.

For years, growers without insight into soil moisture levels effectively hedged their bets by applying more water than might be necessary. “The penalty for overirrigating is much less than the penalty for underirrigating,” said Nick Lammers, Fontanelle’s lead for the AquaView initiative.

Seeking to alleviate this disparity, Fontanelle unveiled the AquaView brand to growers in its service area—largely Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado, with lower numbers in South Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah—last year.

The program is incentive based. When growers buy a certain number of units of corn, Fontanelle provides a probe leased from John Deere Water at no charge. In its first year, 466 growers participated in the program, and Lammers anticipates that between 750 and 800 growers will participate during the upcoming growing season.

“Adoption has been excellent,” Lammers said. “It is much better than what we originally anticipated.”

The probe technology automatically takes soil moisture readings at 4, 8, 20, and 36 inches in depth. These readings are then uploaded to a satellite every 2½ hours, which allows growers to log in to a password-

Irrigation Leader

protected website and see the data.

In addition to offering the probes, Fontanelle provides technical support to growers as they interpret soil moisture data. “Every probe we put in a grower’s field is supported by a professional agronomist,” Lammers said. “Each week, they make contact with the grower to review data and help them form or make decisions.”

To prove the efficacy of the AquaView initiative, Fontanelle conducted a study with the participation of several corn growers. Fontanelle installed moisture probes in two crop circles on each grower’s land. In the first circle, Fontanelle made watering decisions using data from the probes. In the second circle, the grower managed water application without insight into the moisture probe data.

“In every one of those situations, we increased yield,” said Lammers, noting that using the moisture probes on average saved 1¾ to 2 inches of water and around $2,000 in energy costs.

Lammers equates the benefits of moisture probe technology to the fuel gauge on a pickup. “If I took that gauge away, does your strategy change?” he said.

“If you don’t have that gauge, you will always keep your tank full—even if it means filling up when you don’t have to.”

For more information on Fontanelle’s AquaView initiative, visit its website at http://www.fontanelle. com/aquaview.

29

The Innovators Irrigation Practices Field, the Irrigation Training and Research Center’s outdoor laboratory for field irrigation.

Cal Poly Irrigation Center Trains District Staff, Funds Academic Programs

W

hen Dr. Charles Burt founded California Polytechnic State University’s Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) in 1989, he sensed a shift in the academic establishment away from programs tailored to the needs of the irrigated agriculture community. To combat this shift, he brought his own consulting work in-house and established ITRC as a functioning engineering firm in an educational setting.

“We created a business to support the school,” Burt said. “Basically, it’s an engineering and research firm at a university that pays for an academic program.”

More than two decades since its founding, ITRC has become a preeminent source of training and technical expertise to irrigators not only in the United States, but throughout the world. The 30

center’s 13 professional staff members offer more than 60 on-and off-site training classes to irrigation districts and irrigation supply dealers each year, as well as tailored engineering expertise based on project evaluation criteria developed with irrigation district needs in mind.

“We don’t target the final end users with our training,” Burt said. “We’ve tried to design it for multiplier effects through irrigation district employees or dealers because they service so many farmers.”

Beyond its training offerings, ITRC helps districts to evaluate existing issues and develop solutions. A primary vehicle for its efforts is its internally developed rapid appraisal process, which allows center staff to quickly determine the needs of a district. “Especially overseas, people were just researching things to death and not getting anything Irrigation Leader

done,” Burt said. “We assess the many things you can do for irrigation districts to improve performance, and we don’t need to spend a year to learn what can be done effectively for first steps.”

Additionally, ITRC boasts several technological developments and systems improvements, including the ITRC Flap Gate.

The gate is a simple, inexpensive hydraulic gate for automatic upstream water level control that has fewer mechanical parts than most comparable products. To date, the gate has been installed at over 200 locations throughout California under a program sponsored by Reclamation.

Further advances attributed to ITRC’s efforts include the development of sophisticated canal automation algorithms that smooth irrigation system operations, as well as the refinement of water balance calculations to determine the efficiency of conservation efforts.

“Overall, we shine at being able to walk into irrigation districts and conceptualize a whole new strategic way of operating,” Burt said.

Burt attributes the continued development of Cal Poly’s academic offerings in irrigation to the success of ITRC, while comparable programs at other universities have diminished. “It was a strategic decision I made a long time ago,” said Burt, noting that other programs lack the ability to generate their own sources of revenue. “If we weren’t doing it, there is no money for decent public university education, especially in irrigation.”

Cal Poly remains one of the last strongholds of professional university training in irrigation practices, and Burt laments that the nation no longer adequately supports students pursuing irrigation training. “Because there are almost no undergraduate irrigation programs now, almost all of the graduate students are from other countries,” he said. “We’ve got to think long term, the whole business needs qualified people and qualified people to teach them.”

Charles Burt, PhD, PE, is the chairman and founder of California Polytechnic State University’s Irrigation Training and Research Center in San Luis Obispo, California.

He can be reached by phone at (805) 756-2379, or by e-mail at cburt@calpoly.edu.

More information on ITRC can be found on its website at http://www.itrc.org.

Irrigation Leader

Photos of the Irrigation Training and Research Center's Water Resources Facility, which has an assortment of flumes, canals, pipelines, flow measurement testing, pumps, etc. that focusing on irrigation district work.

31

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

2011 CALENDAR

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

Mar. 1–4

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

Mar. 1–3

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

Mar. 8

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

Mar. 8–9

National Waterways Conference, Legislative Summit, Washington, DC

Mar. 12–16

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

Mar. 16–18

Irrigation Assn., Legislative Conference, Washington, DC

Apr. 4–6

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

May 10–13

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

June 15–17

Texas Water Conservation Assn., Mid-Year Conference, Galveston, TX

June 22–24

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

June 27–28

Idaho Water Users Assn., Summer Water Law Seminar & Workshop, Sun Valley, ID

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.