Irrigation Leader October 2012

Volume 3 Issue 9

October 2012

Sonia Lambert: Managing and Modernizing in Texas

Learning from Others

By Kris Polly

T

he very best part of my work is the many great people I am able to meet, spend time with, and learn from. Additionally, the most import mission of Irrigation Leader magazine is to help our readers share ideas and learn from the examples and experiences of others.

Sonia Lambert, general manager for Cameron County Irrigation District #2 and Cameron County Drainage District #3 in San Benito, Texas, is one of my favorite managers. After you see where and how Sonia works and manages her districts, you go home and clean your office.

You also do some serious thinking about how you interact with others and wonder whether you are as good a listener as you should be. Humble and always gracious, Sonia has a steadfast, quiet leadership style. She also has a constant drive to make things better. The impressive infrastructure changes to her districts, from a new pumping plant to a modernized her canal system with remotely controlled canal gates, speak to her effectiveness.

Working on this issue of Irrigation Leader provided the opportunity to meet another great leader in irrigation and water issues. “Hello, this is Chris Gregoire” was how Governor Gregoire introduced herself when she phoned in to the conference call for her interview. There was no staffer who said, “Governor Gregoire will speak with you now,” or a conference room full of people to help with answers at the other end of a speakerphone. Governor Gregoire phoned in herself, and speaking with her is like having a conversation with your neighbor. It was quickly apparent that she knows Washington State agriculture and water issues like a manager knows his or her district.

By the end of our nearly 30-minute talk, there was no

question in my mind as to how she has been so effective or why the irrigators in eastern Washington like her so much.

She is a problem solver, just like they are.

Leroy Goodson, general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association, is someone every association manager should try to emulate. His 75-member board meetings never last more than an hour. When asked how this is possible, he will reply, “We get our business done ahead of time,” but the real answer is leadership. Leroy is a tremendous leader. Ask any Texan, and he or she will wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Paul Deveau, general manager of the Boise Project Board of Control, is a manager’s manager and a character among characters. Paul will tell you exactly what he thinks and what needs to be done. Having worked nearly every job at his district before becoming manager, Paul knows his project and organization exceptionally well. I love his quote, “If you look at your crew, and you don’t see anything wrong; if you look at your equipment, and you don’t see anything wrong; if you look at your relationship with all of the different entities involved with your project, and you don’t see anything wrong; then you’re what’s wrong. You have to continually look at what you are doing, how you do it, and stay up with the times. If you don’t, you’ll be left behind.” Absolute wisdom.

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

Operations and Management Workshop Location: Crown Plaza Phoenix Airport

4300 E Washington, Phoenix, Arizona Date:

Wednesday, January 23 and Thursday, January 24, 2013

Purpose: Irrigation Leader magazine will sponsor an Operations and Management Workshop to provide an opportunity for irrigation district managers and their respective board directors to discuss and exchange information on a variety of district operational and management-related issues, build out-ofstate working relationships, and learn from their peers. The issues and topics discussed will be selected by general managers and board directors and will pertain directly to the management and improvement of irrigation districts. Discussions will feature case studies with district managers sharing their experiences alongside product or service vendors who were directly involved. Spots are limited, so reserve early.

For more information, please e-mail Kris Polly at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com

OCTOBER 2012

C O N T E N T S 2 Learning from Others

Volume 3

Issue 8

By Kris Polly

4 Managing and Modernizing in Texas

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

10 Fightin’ Doesn’t Get Us Any More Water:

Staff: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Crotty, Senior Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting, LLC, Copyeditor

SUBMISSIONS: Irrigation Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions. However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved. Submissions are returned only upon request.

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

A Conversation with Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire

14 The Texas Water Conservation Association

By Leroy Goodson

18 Construction Continues at Red Willow Dam

By Nancy Wilson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

20 An Aqueous Solution: The Potential for

Saltwater Desalination to Address Freshwater Resource Development Needs in Texas

By James Murphy

22 The Fiscal Cliff

By Michael Platner, Bob Szabo, and Richard Agnew

District Focus:

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

26 Pecos River Basin Uses Technology and Conservation to Protect Its Resources and Preserve Water Rights

Copyright © 2012 Water Strategies, LLC. Irrigation Leader relies upon the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contibutor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Irrigation Leader magazine, its editors, or Water Strategies, LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Irrigation Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies, LLC or Irrigation Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

30 Adapting Asparagus to the Imperial Valley

COVER PHOTO: Sonia Lambert, General Manager for Cameron County Irrigation District #2 and Cameron County Drainage District #3. Photo by Sabrina Vallanueva.

Irrigation Leader

By Aron Balok

Irrigated Crops:

By Don Brock

Water Law: 32 Of Rights and Revenues: State of Arizona’s Claim to Federally Reserved Water Rights on State Trust Lands Rejected

By John Crotty

Manager Profile: 36 Paul Deveau

38 Classified Listings 3

Managing and Modernizing in Texas

S

onia Lambert is the general manager for Cameron County Irrigation District #2 and Cameron County Drainage District #3 in San Benito, Texas. The drainage district encompasses 148 square miles within Cameron County and includes the City of San Benito, the fourth-fastest-growing metropolitan region in the state of Texas. The irrigation district covers 58,000 acres that include 226 miles of canals. Under Ms. Lambert’s 13 years of leadership, the districts have undertaken extensive water conservation, delivery, and drainage projects to better serve South Texas. Irrigation Leader Editor-in-Chief Kris Polly spoke with her about the districts, her work, and her views on leadership in water resources.

Kris Polly: Can you give our readers some background about the two districts you manage and the status of their infrastructure when you began your general manager position?

Sonia Lambert: I manage an irrigation district and a drainage district. The irrigation district was formed in 1908 but two years later, it started having financial problems. In 1912, the drainage district was formed with taxing authority to help the irrigation district. Since then, the two districts have operated under the same roof and the same management. When I assumed the manager position in 1999, the irrigation district used all of its employees and equipment to run the drainage district through an interlocal agreement.

4

Since then, there has been a lot of progress. Each district employs its own staff of approximately 40 employees and is governed by its own board of directors. However, they still operate under the same roof and under the same manager. We never made a decision to split the districts, and I don’t think it has ever been a consideration, primarily because of the easements and rights of way shared by the two districts. Our canals and drainage ditches are mostly adjacent to each other. There is a lot of cooperation between the two districts, and there has been for the past 100 years.

Kris Polly: What actions have been taken at the two districts to improve efficiency, maximize your water supply, and reduce operating cost?

Sonia Lambert: In 2000, legislation passed authorizing water conservation projects for the irrigation district.

Although they have yet to be fully funded, we are very fortunate to have moved ahead with a lot of these projects.

We do get a little bit of funds every year. In the past 10 years, the irrigation district has constructed a 700 cubic-feet-per-second pumping plant, lined over 4 miles of earthen canals with a geocomposite liner and 2 inches of concrete, converted approximately 15 miles of earthen canals into pipelines, and installed 21 automated Rubicon gates, which allow us the capability of remote operation.

This area has seen its share of development and the need for additional drainage. The drainage district

Irrigation Leader

has been fortunate to receive federal funds for the expansion of its drains. We run a year-round program with the drainage district. Not only do we maintain it, but we also do system upgrades during the year to prepare for that potential one major storm we have per year.

But both systems have made great strides in improving infrastructure in the past 10 years.

Kris Polly: So your system must be maintained year-round because it operates year-round?

Sonia Lambert: Correct. Of course, the district drains out all of the city of San Benito’s water.

Drainage districts aren’t only for farmers and rural areas. We have to continuously maintain the system to ensure that water is flowing. The district has a very good relationship with the city, and we have only one goal in mind: provide the best drainage that we can with the available resources. At times, we do perform Sonia Lambert in her office. joint projects with the city to improve our system.

Sonia Lambert: They have in the past. Toward the Kris Polly: What is the goal for your districts, and end of the year, there are municipalities that don’t have what work remains to be done? sufficient water rights or water under contract. They Sonia Lambert: Every irrigation district wants to go out to irrigation districts to look for any available completely pipe their earthen canals, line all main canals, surface water to complete their year, since they only meter all water to the crop fields, and automate all get replenished every first of the year. Normally around systems. And that has to be our goal. this time, October, November, and December, we see We have developed a capital improvements program. municipalities out on the market for water. It is not a Hopefully in the next five years we’ll be able to pipe major amount, but any amount of funds that we do get another 15 miles of canals and line another 5, as well in excess of what we budgeted can be used toward capital as add more automated gates to our system. In the near improvements. future, I think we will do a big portion of it. Lining that Kris Polly: What is the most important issue facing next 15 miles is my goal, but it only scratches the surface irrigation districts in Texas? of what needs to be done. It will be well past my lifetime Sonia Lambert: You know, Kris, if you had asked me when everything that needs to be achieved will be. that last year, I would have said lack of funding for water Kris Polly: Do you sell your conserved water to your conservation and capital improvement projects. Today, farmers? my answer is water supply. Texas is facing one of its worst Sonia Lambert: Farmers are at the low end of the droughts in history. This area is dependent on water totem pole with respect to water supply. The water that storage in Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs, local rainfall, is available in Falcon and Amistad Reservoirs is first and Mexico’s compliance with the 1944 treaty between allocated to municipalities. If there is any additional water the two countries. With the depleting supplies in our two available, then it is provided to farmers for irrigation. reservoirs, the lack of local rainfall, and Mexico’s untimely We’re only allowed to deliver a certain amount of water release of agreed-upon water . . . our priorities have been for the year, which is dependent on the amount of water forced to change. The most important issue today is water rights that we own. We want to store any water that is supply. conserved for future irrigation. That which we could The most significant effect the drought has had on us not store or that we predict we will not need within the is not being able to plan. Farmers ask us on a daily basis, current or subsequent year, we would make available to especially around this time, what the water situation is municipalities or anyone else. today and what we are projecting for next year. Not being Kris Polly: Would the local municipalities purchase able to adequately answer that question is one of the conserved water from you? Could you use such funding toughest situations that I face. You give them your best toward capital improvements?

Irrigation Leader

5

estimates. It is just dependent on the weather.

Kris Polly: You don’t have a time when your canals are dry. Can you talk about your maintenance challenges?

Sonia Lambert: This year has been exceptional. Our typical growing season is such that farmers start irrigating in December, plant in February, and harvest in July and August. Due to high corn prices, this year they planted a fall crop. So we irrigate year round. It makes it difficult to do capital improvement projects when your canals are still being used and crops are still being irrigated.

But we’ve been very fortunate to complete a lot of improvements in the Looking into Mexico. Border fence and inlet to Rio Grande River about 100 yards from pumping plant. district. We’re looking forward to the next few years. state legislator, and member of Congress in the 17 western Kris Polly: When one visits your office, it is striking Reclamation states. What is your message to our elected how organized, clean, and neat everything is. There is no representatives? clutter of any kind, the grounds are immaculate, and all Sonia Lambert: We all know the value and need for the vehicles are exceptionally clean. Can you share your water. It is the most basic necessity in life. All irrigation management philosophy on that? districts are in need of conserving and preserving natural Sonia Lambert: Some people will laugh at your resources. We would ask elected representatives to observation, Kris, because people have accused me of being advocate for irrigated agriculture and for the people who overly meticulous! I like to think that your surroundings work in this field every day. We see first hand the need to are representative of your mind. So you start your day preserve and conserve this natural resource. I would have clean and clear of everything and are able to operate to ask them to provide more water conservation funding. effectively.

Kris Polly: As a general manager, what is the most important thing you have learned?

Sonia Lambert: It’s not only about running the business, it is about learning and accepting other people’s experiences, thoughts, and beliefs. That leads to more effective and efficient work. That plays a big role in what managers do every day.

I have never, nor probably will I ever, call myself a leader. Most people think that general managers are leaders—and it’s fine that they think that—but I just believe in working hard and doing the best work that I can do. Others can call you that if it is warranted; I always prefer humility and the respect that comes with that.

Kris Polly: Irrigation Leader Cameron County Irrigation District #2 river pumping plant with dual natural gas magazine is now sent to every governor, and electric pumping capability.

6

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Fightin' Doesn't Get Us Any More Water A Conversation with Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire

W

ashington State Governor Christine Gregoire knows water. As a long-time public servant— director of the Department of Ecology, assistant attorney general, attorney general, and two-term governor— Governor Gregoire has been a leader on irrigation and agricultural issues in Washington State for over 25 years. As the governor prepares to transition out of office, Irrigation Leader Editor-in-Chief Kris Polly talked with her about her work and views on western water.

Kris Polly: Can you share with our readers your experiences working with water resources in your various positions before becoming governor?

Governor Gregoire: Water issues really resonated with me as a significant challenge to our state when I was appointed director of the Department of Ecology back in 1988. After a full briefing from Ecology, I concluded that one of the biggest challenges for the future of the state was going to be water. Frankly, there was a lot of dismissing of that attitude in the western part of the state. On the other hand, there was a much greater understanding in the eastern part of the state—although it is important to note that the Yakima River Basin, located in eastern Washington, is a state breadbasket. Irrigated agriculture is necessary for us to provide food not only to Washington but around the globe.

10

Our water supplies are tied to the snowpack in the Cascades. In years with a low snowpack, reservoir levels drop. I dealt with this scenario within the first six months of becoming governor, when I had to declare a state of emergency in Yakima due to drought conditions. We had to cut off junior water rights [required by law], including the rights of farmers, irrigation districts, and even a town.

So, I learned early on that the economic lifeblood of the state, particularly in eastern Washington, is an adequate water supply. It is critical to our farmers, our agriculture economy, our power, our transportation, our communities, our businesses, our fish and wildlife, and our recreation.

This has been a high-priority issue for me. As attorney general, I was involved in water rights adjudication in the Yakima Basin. What that experience taught me in preparation for being governor is the old adage: “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s for fightin’, and fightin’ doesn’t get us any more water.” I came into office for governor believing water to be a crisis in need of immediate attention.

Kris Polly: Although you have addressed much of the topic area, is there anything else you would add to what is the value of irrigated agriculture to Washington State?

Governor Gregoire: Agriculture is a $2.5 billion industry in our state. When I travel abroad to tout our agricultural products, I visit countries where every french Irrigation Leader

fry is brought to them by Washington State. Last year, our from our federal administration and from the United potato exports were worth almost $700 million in Asia States Congress. alone. The potato industry supports 25,000 people who Both of those areas have seen huge breakthroughs. It are involved in the industry. has been about ending the litigation and working together.

We export our apples, our cherries, and we have worldKris Polly: How do you get everyone to work together? class wine. In fact, the number of licensed wineries in our Governor Gregoire: We’ve got as diverse a group of state has doubled from about 350 to 700 in 2012. The people as you could imagine sitting together in the Yakima wine industry provides 30,000 jobs in Washington State.

River Basin [Water Enhancement Project]: the Yakima A reliable source of water is absolutely crucial to our Indian Nation, the irrigation districts, the conservationists, agriculture industry in this state. and local governments. They’ve developed a plan with the Kris Polly: What steps or programs has your state and federal government in which everyone’s priority administration undertaken to help promote or enhance agriculture and irrigation water supplies in Washington State?

Governor Gregoire: Since I already had my learning experience [on water issues] as director of Ecology and as attorney general, I had seen what years of litigation had brought us when I came into office. We [the governor’s office] decided that we had to think of a new way of working on water issues and that meant all of us sitting down at a conference table working together—so we came up Groundbreaking ceremony for Red Mountain project, which will develop 1,315 new with what we call the Columbia irrigated acres for vineyards. Property will be worth $25,000–$30,000 per acre with irrigation. (Left to right: David McKenzie (KID board), Kirk Rathbun (KID board), Patrick River Water Supply Program. We McGuire (KID board vice president), Ted Sturdevant (Washington Ecology director), forged an agreement, developed Governor Gregoire, Derek Sandison (director, Ecology’s Office of Columbia River), and some new tools to secure water Dan Newhouse (Washington Ag. director). Photo by Doris Rakowski (KID staff). from the river, and invested about is recognized and is a part of implementation. As we $480 million in water infrastructure. When I came into have put money in implementation and human resources, office, there was a moratorium on issuing new water [the stakeholders] see material action in the priority that rights; we’ve since issued about 400 [new rights] in eastern they have. Everyone comes into the process with mutual Washington and approved about 1,300 changes [to respect. It’s not, “My way or no way.” existing rights] for residents and farmers.

It was music to my ears to have the chairman of the To launch the program and show our seriousness, in Yakima Indian Nation say at one of the meetings we a negotiation session with our legislature I offered to had about a year ago, “The time for conflict is over. It’s put $200 million upfront to develop new water supplies time for us to go work to get something done.” That is through storage and conservation. That got everyone’s the attitude of everyone at that table. As a result of it, attention, got the approval, and kick-started the initiative. they are seeing the benefit, seeing action being taken on The initiative caught a lot of attention and good will. priorities that they set. Along the way, some priorities may At the same time, we knew after years of litigation have been dismissed because [those priorities] are not that we had to look at the Yakima River Basin and a new as important as others. Stakeholders have had to set real program that could provide water supplies to our farmers, priorities and not ask for everything. towns, and industries. We’ve made immense progress Kris Polly: In your opinion, how important will there. I have just said goodbye to those folks a few weeks irrigation be to future food supplies and food security? ago. I tell you, by sitting around the table, everybody Governor Gregoire: We see ourselves as challenged understands, everybody has skin in the game, everybody just as everyone in the West sees themselves as challenged. benefits. As long as the stakeholders stick together, As I mentioned to you, this really is a breadbasket. I travel we’re going to get the kind of support we need from our around the globe and find that our agricultural products Washington State legislature, and hopefully, at some point, Irrigation Leader

11

are known for high quality. That is our reputation. We may not produce more than the next guy, but everyone says that our agricultural products are of the highest quality. That is in large part because of great farmers, a great research institution in Washington State University, and the water supplies that we have.

We are going to be challenged. Spring snowpack is expected to decrease measurably—as much as 30 percent by the 2020s. So we’re going to have to make sure that we avoid increased frequency of droughts and severity. That means working together like we have been.

As I’ve promoted our products around the globe, the potential is immense. Think of how many people there are to feed in China and India by way of an example. That puts it into perspective. Everyone wants to make sure that food supplies are safe and secure. Washington State is at the top of the list.

Kris Polly: What are your views on developing hydropower and its use to address Washington State’s energy needs?

Governor Gregoire: We have more renewable energy in Washington than in any other state and about twothirds of it is hydropower. By initiative, the people of the state asked for other alternative energies, so we now have solar and wind and are looking at other [potential renewable sources]. Our hydropower is the heart and soul of our economic development. We won an international competition to get a company, SGL, a compositeproducing company for BMW’s electric car in Germany, [to build a manufacturing plant in Moses Lake]. It was because of our low-cost energy, which really is hydropower.

Ultimately, we have to be smart about how we [utilize hydropower]. We have to recognize the litigation that we are confronting with regard to salmon fisheries and keep working together to solve it. I think Washington State has a culture that we’ve seen be successful—we work together on our own to make it happen better than the courts, or the federal government, or anyone else.

Kris Polly: Is balancing the diverse demand for water resources in Washington State achievable?

Governor Gregoire: Yes, absolutely. We’ve done it. I’ve been chair of the Western Governors’ Association and Western States’ Attorneys Association and [the focus] was always on water and natural resources. I’ve seen the conflict and what has resulted in my own state. I’ve seen what has happened in other states.

The only way we can balance that demand is if we work together. We call it the “Washington Way” in our own home state. We all know it, we respect each other, and that’s how we are going to successfully address issues of demand.

Kris Polly: What message would you convey to the United States Congress and the governors of the other 16 12

western states on the importance of irrigation, agriculture, and water supply infrastructure?

Governor Gregoire: We have to invest in infrastructure. Water isn’t free. We did it in the first half of the last century and look it what it gave us. Now we take [that infrastructure] for granted. We have to consider all the uses of water and ensure that all the interests are respected.

As an example, under the Columbia program, we have been able to issue new water rights into a new area called Odessa. There is a high volume of potatoes of a fairly unique, long-lasting variety in the area. Those potatoes ultimately feed people after the growing season is over because they store so well. It was threatened, and we worked with the Colville tribe to secure 380 million gallons of water supplies out of Lake Roosevelt.

That is what we get when we work together. But it will require investment. This is infrastructure; it is no different than building a road. We need to ensure that we have infrastructure and are engaging in conservation efforts. If we step up as a country, the return on investment will be immense.

Kris Polly: Well, Governor, we appreciate your time.

Good luck with your future plans whatever they may be. We certainly hope you end up in water issues again because we need more leaders who can solve problems.

Governor Gregoire: I’m with you. I can’t thank you enough.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Texas Water Conservation Association

By Leroy Goodson The Texas Water Conservation Association (TWCA) was created back in 1944 as an organization of water professionals in Texas.

Currently, our 400 members represent a diversity of water interests, including individuals, water districts and authorities, public and private agencies, cities, and groups involved in the water industry. Our members provide water and/or wastewater services to a great majority of the citizens of Texas and represent the full spectrum of water interests. As an advocate for our members, TWCA works to inform policymakers in the Texas legislature, the United States Congress, and governmental agencies about water resource issues; raise public awareness of water issues and activities; provide professional growth opportunities; and in addition, offer insurance coverage for water agencies through a Risk Management Program.

TWCA is governed by a board of directors selected by the membership through nine panels representing each of the major water interests. Including directors, officers, and past presidents, we may have 70 to 80 people involved in board activities at any time. Our board meets four times a year and, even though our presiding officers like to conduct business within an hour or so, much is accomplished.

While each year the hot-button issues may differ in the legislature, the top recurring issues that we address are water availability and water quality. In fact, the association’s mission drives our work: to develop, conserve, protect, and utilize the water resources of the state for all beneficial purposes. That is what all of us are working to do. Our members are trying to provide the quantity and quality of water needed now and in the future for the people of Texas.

Texas Water Day

TWCA, in conjunction with the Texas Water Development Board, hosts Texas Water Day in Washington, DC, each year to provide an opportunity for as many as 100 Texas water professionals to visit with members of our congressional delegation, their staffs, and the regulatory agencies. Given the circumstances of limited financial capabilities at the federal and state level, we want our members to have a direct voice with respect to the federal funding of Texas water infrastructure projects. To ensure that our members are fully aware of the issues facing them, we generally limit our areas of focus to five or six major topics, such as regulatory relief, endangered species, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s recapitalization of infrastructure assets, drought, and U.S.

14

Geological Survey funding.

TWCA started Texas Water Day seven years ago to educate the members of the delegation on the water issues affecting our membership in the state of Texas. We looked at the success of the California model at the Association of California Water Agencies, and knew we could replicate it. Over the years, many of our members have gone to Washington to make their individual cases for funding and regulatory changes. Texas Water Day presents a unified effort to address issues facing the various water interests in the state. In 2013, Texas Water Day is scheduled for first week of February.

Conferences and Events

TWCA conducts three meetings a year to provide a forum, through conferences and events, for the education of members and nonmembers alike. We hold a mid-year conference, a fall conference, and an annual convention.

These gatherings provide water professionals with a venue for learning, networking, and problem solving. Generally, we have 10 to 15 exhibitors at the annual conference, and this year will be the first time we have exhibits in the fall meeting. We make sure to include some special touches at our conferences. Last summer, when we wheeled out an ice cream cart, people immediately started lining up and ate for an hour!

In conjunction with the Texas Rural Water Association, TWCA also holds a day-and-a-half-long water law seminar every other year in Austin. Texas attorneys receive continuing legal education credits by attending, but the seminar draws a variety of interested individuals. The seminar’s 250 attendees include members of the Texas legislature, regulatory agency officers, and staffers from different water organizations.

Risk Management Fund

Texas water districts and authorities created the Risk Management Fund to provide TWCA members a comprehensive program of self-insurance, as well as risk management, legal, and loss-prevention services. The fund is a self-insurance pool created under Texas law through interlocal agreements among water districts, authorities, and the fund. A member-elected board of trustees governs the fund, while a third-party administrator handles the day-to-day operations.

About 25 years ago, the state required political subdivisions to obtain workers’ compensation insurance.

At the time, commercial insurance markets were unstable, and the ability to get insurance was limited. TWCA, Irrigation Leader

together with water districts and authorities, undertook the development of a risk management pool to meet the needs of our members.

A Member-driven Organization

TWCA only has five full-time staff members. The success of the organization is dependent on its members and volunteers. The association is so diverse in its membership that whenever there is an issue that affects a member, he or she gets involved. When assigned a duty on a committee or panel, our members undertake it with rigor and seriousness.

All we do is provide the opportunities for members to be involved. We have some of the best talent and knowledge in water resources among our membership, and the committees do an outstanding job.

Leroy Goodson is the general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association.

He may be contacted by phoning (512) 472-7216 or by e-mailing lgoodson@twca.org

Steven L. Hernandez attorney at law Specializing in

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

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

slh@lclaw-nm.com

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Construction Continues at Red Willow Dam

By Nancy Wilson U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

T

he Bureau of Reclamation announced on September 4 that construction activities related to extensive modifications at Red Willow Dam are progressing at an accelerated rate.

“The contract completion date for Red Willow Dam modifications is currently November 27, 2013,” said Aaron Thompson, Reclamation's Nebraska-Kansas area manager.

“But both our agency and SEMA Construction are doing everything possible to complete the contract as soon as possible so the public can fully enjoy the vast benefits of Red Willow Dam.” To date, SEMA Construction has excavated approximately 350,000 cubic yards of the downstream face of Red Willow Dam, including exposing a portion of the spillway conduit and the outlet works conduit. Reconstruction has commenced, including placement of a geonet/sand-and-gravel filtration system along the entire length of the dam.

The filtration system involves placing nearly 150,000 square yards of geonet and geotextile materials. Approximately 25 percent of the geonet has been placed and is being systematically covered with layers of sand and gravel. Size requirements for the sand and gravel, which make up the filter system, are very specific. Due to the lack of suitable material on site, the contractor has been hauling sand and gravel materials from various other sites.

The original pipe drain at the downstream toe of the dam has also been removed and replaced with a horizontal drain consisting of a layer of gravel and a layer of sand. This filter and drainage system provides valuable protection against internal erosion of the dam embankment.

Looking north at the downstream face of the dam currently being excavated.

18

Irrigation Leader

For safety and security reasons, access to the construction site and travel across the dam remains closed to the public during the construction period.

The Nebraska-Kansas Area Office maintenance crew constructed an observation area at the southwest end of the dam that is accessible by county roads.

In October 2009, Reclamation crews discovered a sinkhole on the face of the dam. Subsequent investigations revealed embankment cracking, prompting Reclamation to lower Hugh Butler Lake, which is impounded by Red Willow Dam. Red Willow Dam is an earthfill embankment with a structural height of 126 feet that, when in operation, forms a reservoir of 86,630 acre-feet. An ungated concrete spillway is located in the right abutment. An outlet works through the base of the dam provides for river and irrigation releases for downstream diversions.

Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second-largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 western states. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov.

View of the bench constructed in preparation to begin excavation of the downstream face of Red Willow Dam.

Contractor’s Zone 3 stockpile and staging areas are in the background.

Irrigation Leader

19

An Aqueous Solution:

The Potential for Saltwater Desalination to Address Freshwater Resource Development Needs in Texas

By James Murphy

I

n conjunction with essential storage, conservation, and technological innovations, saltwater desalination could serve to ensure adequate water supplies and bolster atrisk agricultural enterprises in south central Texas. Of course, water development projects and costs are always considered in light of the question, “Relative to what?” Given the costs and uncertainties associated with brackish ground water desalination projects, the regulatory and regional restraints of interbasin transfers, and the unreliability of adequate precipitation, saltwater desalination holds a promising future for the stability of freshwater supplies in the state of Texas.

With these considerations in mind, in June 2012, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) issued a request for qualifications to prepare a feasibility assessment study for an integrated water-power project—the development of a seawater desalination regional water supply plant with the option of a colocated power generation facility. The study will assess the potential for a seawater desalination plant with an initial production capacity of 25 million gallons per day (mgd), expandable to 250 mgd. The projected initial capacity of the colocated power generation facility is 500 megawatts (MW), with the potential capacity of 3,000 MW. The study is expected to identify up to five potential sites for the desalination project. GBRA intends for the study to be completed before January 2015, prior to the opening of Texas’s 84th legislative session. The goal of the feasibility study is be able to go the legislature or the private sector in 2015 and move forward with the project.

How It Works

Desalination is the process by which salt and other minerals are removed from seawater or brackish ground water to produce fresh water. The two primary methods of desalinization are membrane desalination, a process whereby a pressure difference is applied across a membrane to diffuse the water and separate salts, and thermal desalination, a process that separates salt from water by evaporation and condensation. Generally, the membrane process requires less energy than thermal-based desalination.

Reverse osmosis (RO) is the most common membranebased desalination method for seawater and brackish water.

RO produces a concentrate brine and a permeate of almost pure water. The process involves multiple stages and systems: pretreatment of the water, removal of particulate matter, a pumping system to apply pressure to the water feed, an

20

energy recovery system to transfer potential energy, and posttreatment to meet drinking water or irrigation standards.

The Driving Forces Behind Desalination in Texas

Three main factors spur GBRA’s interest in saltwater desalination: increased demand for freshwater, fragile water supplies, and relatively inexpensive fuel. The population of Texas is booming. Projections indicate 46.3 million people will call Texas home by 2060—an 82 percent increase from 2010. South central Texas expects a population increase of 75 percent during that time. The Guadalupe and San Antonio river basins will likely bear a disproportionate level, a projected 70 percent of the population growth in south central Texas. As a result, the region’s municipal water use is projected to reach 640,000 acre-feet per year by 2060, almost twice the use in 2000.

Coupled with population growth is the ongoing devastation of drought. The data indicate that 2011 was the driest year in Texas since modern recordkeeping began in 1895. The impacts have been monumental. The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension has estimated agricultural losses at $5.2 billion, and the Texas Forest Service has estimated a loss of 10 percent of the state’s trees. Reservoir levels have decreased by 58 percent. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) projects that a drought of record, like that of the 1950s, could cost $116 billion in income by 2060. The effects are a grim reminder of the significant impact that fragile water supplies have on our economy.

On the positive side, Texas has an abundance of natural gas and a sophisticated infrastructure to utilize it. These conditions set the stage for opportunity. Potentially, natural gas could serve as a relatively inexpensive fuel source to drive a desalination plant. The colocation of a power generation plant with an intake structure could reduce costs even further, lessening the weight of initial desalination infrastructure investments.

Augmenting Existing Plans

Regional and state water planning efforts have acknowledged the challenges of water resource development in the light of drought and growth, but those considerations have not translated to a desalination plan at the state level.

GBRA officials see an opportunity to make a real case for saltwater desalination so that it no longer stands on the periphery of state efforts and has a real chance to come to fruition.

Irrigation Leader

Water planning in Texas is divided into 16 regional groups that identify water needs, assess potential water supplies, and recommend strategies for meeting those needs. GBRA is a member of the south central Texas group.

Regional water plans serve as a basis for the state water plan.

In the 2012 State Water Plan, water management strategies emphasize conservation along with projects that utilize existing surface water supplies, ground water, aquifer storage and recovery, and brackish ground water.

The 2012 State Water Plan, however, does not include saltwater desalination among the priority strategies. Instead, it is categorized as “requiring further study and funding.”

Three regional water planning groups did recommend seawater desalination as a water management strategy in the 2012 plan, but projected production would amount to 125,514 acre-feet per year, only 1.4 percent of new water supplies in Texas, by 2060. This is a missed opportunity, but one that can be remedied, as seawater desalination would greatly benefit the Guadalupe and San Antonio river basins.

Addressing Potential Concerns

In the United States, hesitancy with respect to saltwater desalination seems to be the norm. Infrastructure costs of saltwater desalination projects, while manageable, are high and require a level of intergovernmental cooperation beyond what Texans are used to. On the other hand, economies of scale suggest that the larger the project, the lower the union cost and, therefore, the more affordable to the individual customer.

While the cost of transporting seawater desalination product water from the coast to population centers is a significant but known cost, it diminishes in importance as the project size increases. So for saltwater RO projects, economies of scale suggest an optimum plant capacity of 50– 75 mgd or higher to achieve a preferred unit cost over the life of the project. Fortunately, Texas already has the experience with large-scale water and power projects, and the technical know-how and capabilities to undertake distribution projects.

Innovative and emerging technologies move forward with financial incentives. Cost savings and technology developments have already occurred and will continue to occur in the future. Advances in membrane technology and increased installed capacity were in part responsible for reductions in RO costs over the last few decades. One only has to look at the advances in wastewater infrastructure and technology over the last 30 years. Efficiencies will lead to cost reductions.

In addition to the economic concerns, there are also environmental and regulatory ones. Impingement and entrainment of marine life in the saltwater desalination intake feeds can harm marine life and the desalination plant itself. Fortunately, there are design solutions that address these concerns and the potential regulatory flexibility to do it. Seawater desalination is subject to National Oceanic Irrigation Leader

and Aeronautic Administration (NOAA) oversight. With assessment and impact processes generally less involved than those of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Texas Council of Environmental Quality, NOAA may offer a more flexible regime to achieve both production and environmental goals.

Another concern is waste product disposal. Where brine is discharged into the open sea, water quality and marine life may be negatively impacted in the area of outfall due to waste product chemical composition and high salt concentrations.

Hydrogeology and available technologies will determine the necessary mitigation measures—from the dilution of the brine with seawater prior to the discharge to diffuse discharge devices—to lessen impacts. Another possibility for disposal is solar evaporation ponds. Harvesting the salts from the brine provides an opportunity to monetize the waste of saltwater desalination.

The Long View

From an operational perspective, seawater, as opposed to brackish water, provides reliable feed water quality critical to the continued running of membrane desalination systems.

RO is very sensitive to variability. Brackish ground water varies greatly in salinity and may tap out after 5 to 10 years.

Gulf water, on the other hand, possesses a far more stable quality and quantity for intake purposes.

Seawater desalination assuages long-term water quantity concerns. Even large withdrawals would have no perceived long-term effects on the availability of the supply source.

Ultimately, a proposal to build a seawater desalination project constitutes an opportunity for Texas to lead in area of critical importance to national security while providing a path toward a sustainable freshwater source.

This is a strategic idea that can easily gain the endorsement and support of the legislature, the TWDB, and our residents. It is something that can be used to build partnerships and implement projects to ensure the future economic prosperity and competitiveness of our state.

James Lee Murphy, Esq,. is the executive director of Water Resources and Utility Operations for the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. A graduate of the Tulane University School of Law, Jim practiced law in the oil and gas industry, served as an administrative law judge for the Texas Water Commission, and represented the Trinity River Authority as general counsel. He has been with GBRA for five years.

James may be contacted by phoning (830) 379-5822 or by e-mailing JMurphy@gbra.org.

21

The

Fiscal Cliff A

By Michael Platner, Bob Szabo, and Richard Agnew

ttention to the potentially severe economic consequences the nation is facing due to the so-called “fiscal cliff ” that will occur in January 2013, unless Congress intervenes, is growing. The fiscal cliff is a combination of automatic federal tax increases and federal spending cuts (called sequestration) that will take effect beginning in January 2013, as well as a debt ceiling increase that Congress will need to authorize by the end of 2012 or in early 2013.

If no action is taken by Congress before December 31, 2012, the nation’s economy will go over the cliff automatically.

Unfortunately, paralysis in Congress has become the expected norm in what has been an era of little compromise between the two major political parties. This trend raises grave concerns about the potential implications of the fiscal cliff to the nation if the trend of congressional inaction continues.

Implications If the nation goes over the fiscal cliff, substantial debt reduction will occur but the sudden debt reduction would remove a significant amount of currency from a still-anemic economy. The size of the fiscal cliff is estimated to be a reduction in federal government debt that would remove a little over $600 billion from our national economy in 2013, or about 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). If the nation’s economy were to experience this reduction, the result, as highlighted by a recent Congressional Budget Office report, could well be another recession in early 2013 and an increase in unemployment in an economy that is struggling to remain in the positive range.

The impact on the national economy of the failure to stop short of the fiscal cliff, by the way, is significantly greater than the effect would be if the recommendations of the SimpsonBowles Debt Reduction Commission were enacted into law.

The automatic policies in place that are creating the fiscal cliff include the following.

An Increase in Federal Taxation The overall size of the federal tax increase that will occur automatically for 2013, without remedial congressional action, is about $450 billion from the expiration of numerous tax benefits at the end of 2012. This increase consists primarily of the expiration of the tax rate decreases that began in the Bush administration and were continued at the end of 2010 by President Obama. Higher federal tax payments will be withheld from almost every paycheck in America beginning in January 2013 unless Congress acts by the end of 2012. Tax increases 22

passed in the Affordable Care Act also become effective in 2013. Among the tax reductions scheduled to expire unless Congress acts are: • The reduction in personal tax rates from the so-called “Bush tax cuts” of 2001 and 2003—Without an extension, the tax rate brackets increase from 10 percent to 15 percent, 25 percent to 28 percent, 28 percent to 31 percent, 33 percent to 36 percent, and 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

• The 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains— Without an extension, dividends will be subject to ordinary income rates (as high as 44.6 percent) and capital gains will be subject to a 20 percent rate.

• Elimination of the marriage penalty “fix.”

• The 2 percentage point reduction in social security taxes.

• The “alternative minimum tax”—If the provision that expired at the end of 2011 is not extended, additional tax liability will impact an estimated 50 million households, instead of the 3 to 4 million households intended to be covered by the original policy.

• A plethora of business tax provisions or “extenders”— Examples include the research and experimentation tax credit, bonus depreciation, and energy tax incentives.

Reduced Federal Spending Just as federal taxes are scheduled to increase, federal spending is scheduled to be reduced automatically beginning January 2, 2013, through the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The act results in mandatory cuts to federal spending taken equally from the defense discretionary spending programs of the federal government and nondefense discretionary spending programs, as well as from Medicare spending. The total reduced expenditures for 2013 under these automatic cuts will be approximately $110 billion. In addition, the “doc fix” that boosts Medicare reimbursement rates to an acceptable level will expire at the end of 2012, as will the extension of unemployment benefits from 26 to 52 weeks. The expiration of these provisions will take an additional $52 billion out of the national economy in 2013.

Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act that was recently signed into law by the president, the administration must specify by September 6 the federal programs that will be reduced by $110 billion in 2013. It is highly doubtful that the administration will provide more than the most general indications of the cuts that will be made to implement the sequestration program in 2013. The administration did not meet the September 6 deadline, but at this writing, the sequestration program specifications are expected to be delivered to Congress during the week of September 10. We understand that because neither the president nor the Republicans in Congress want these sequestrations to occur, the specifications should not be viewed as the president’s political choices but rather the way the Office of Management and Budget would recommend that the cuts be executed if the sequestration program were to go into effect.

Irrigation Leader

Federal Funding Programs of Importance to the Water Community Whether through sequestration or through a grand bargain, perhaps along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles Debt Reduction Plan, reduced spending on federal programs of importance to the water community is on the horizon. With Republicans focused primarily on preserving defense spending and avoiding revenue increases and Democrats focused primarily on preserving the social safety net, other parts of the federal budget are likely to sustain significant cuts in the years ahead.

Perhaps the deepest cuts would occur through the sequestration that is scheduled to begin January 2, 2013, without further intervention from Congress. However, cuts in spending will occur in these programs under any debt action scenario, and the western water community must prepare for this reality.

Congressional Budget Office Report On August 22, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a new report, An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022, which includes an analysis of the impact of the fiscal cliff on the U.S. economy.

According to the new estimates, these policies together will cause the federal government’s budget deficit to drop by almost $500 billion from 2012 to 2013. However, based on the projected tax increases and the reduced federal expenditures, CBO projects negative growth in GDP for calendar year 2013 of about 0.5 percent (output declines in the first half of the year and then rises modestly in the second half ) and an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. Given the pattern of past recessions, as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013, should it continue for another quarter, likely would be deemed a recession.

What Is Congress Likely To Do? That, of course, is the big question. Generally, Democrats are seeking tax increases, smaller cuts in federal spending programs, and smaller cuts in federal entitlement programs. Republicans, on the other hand, generally want no tax increases, smaller cuts in defense spending, and larger cuts in domestic programs, as well as reductions in entitlement programs. Prior to the November 6 election, the most Congress is likely to do is take some political votes and make some political speeches. After the election, the key question will be whether Congress can act to stop the national economy from going over the fiscal cliff.

One option likely to be considered by Congress will be kicking the can down the road to a date in the future when Congress believes it will be safe or realistic to deal with the fiscal cliff caused by these automatic tax increases and automatic spending cuts.

During such a delay, theoretically, Congress and the president could agree on overall reform to spending, entitlements, and federal taxation. Will they, however, be able to even agree to kick the can down the road? Would the public tolerate a further delay? How would Wall Street react? And will American business invest with continued uncertainty on these issues?

Irrigation Leader

Preparing For The Possibility Of The Fiscal Cliff In light of the potential impact on businesses should Congress and the administration either fail to address the fiscal cliff or make only short-term changes that kick the can down the road, Van Ness Feldman recommends the following course of action: • Audit your federal tax and funding situations now to identify key federal tax provisions or spending benefits that may be of special importance to your business. Analyze your tax and cash-flow situations to determine whether you should accelerate income in 2012 or defer deductible expenditures into 2013. With the fiscal cliff pending, is it better to take certain planned actions before the end of 2012 or delay those actions to a future date?

• Establish immediately the means to assess in real time the impact on your business of various tax and spending reform proposals.

• If you have identified specific federal tax and spending provisions that are of special importance to your business, develop the public policy case for that provision being retained or a similar benefit being provided.

• Make your case for the retention of your benefit or for the creation of a similar benefit now to your senators and House members and their staffs, as well as the staffs of the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over the benefit.

Legislation to address the fiscal cliff, particularly if it occurs in the postelection session of this Congress, could move very quickly with a very tight window of opportunity for policy input. Businesses and governmental units need to have in place the means to assess, and rapidly respond to, the potential impacts of various tax and spending proposals as they emerge during the forthcoming debate. Whether legislation to address the fiscal cliff occurs in the postelection session of this Congress or early in 2013, acting now as we suggest will both protect your business and help strengthen your position as a participant in the debate.

Van Ness Feldman offers comprehensive government relations and public policy experience to clients of all sizes and types. Firm professionals have significant experience helping clients to audit their operations to identify the impact of a wide range of federal policies, including federal tax policies and federal spending programs; assisting clients to make the case for or against government policies; and helping clients to analyze quickly the impact on their operations of various proposed federal policies, including federal tax policies and spending policies. In addition, we help clients navigate the complicated and ever-evolving world of federal funding.

Learn more at www.vnf.com. Michael Platner, Bob Szabo, and Richard Agnew may be contacted by phoning (202) 298-1800 or by e-mailing MLP@vnf.com, RGS@vnf.com, or raa@vnf.com respectively.

23

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

District Focus

Pecos River Basin Uses Technology and Conservation to Protect Its Resources and Preserve Water Rights

By Aron Balok

I

n 1891, the first recorded artesian well was drilled in Roswell, New Mexico, and flowed at a rate of 1 gallon per minute. This first trickle was, literally, just a drop in the bucket compared with the full-fledged drilling operations that were to follow with the discovery of artesian aquifers near Roswell. By the end of World War I, ground water development in the area was in full swing, fueled by a seemingly bottomless supply of ground water. It was not uncommon in the 1900s for a farmer or rancher to randomly drill wells and divert water into a field. When he had enough water, the farmer would just change direction and let the water flow off down to the river.

While New Mexico’s surface water was regulated in 1907, access to the state’s ground water was a freefor-all until the mid-1920s. At that point, it became impossible to ignore the effects of increased ground water drilling on hydrologically connected streams and rivers—most notably, the Pecos River. At the urging of the Pecos River Valley residents, the state passed the New Mexico Groundwater Code and, in August 1931, the state engineer officially designated the first portion of the Roswell Goundwater Basin. Under the new law, water prospectors in the basin could no longer drill at will; they now had to seek permission from the state.

This action by the state legislature was the first time any agency had attempted to exercise control over the use of ground water. Prior to 1931, the fights were all over surface water; few had the nerve or the science to point out that the two were linked. After New Mexico became the first state to regulate ground water, the other western states followed suit.

On January 10, 1966, a partial final decree was issued adjudicating the majority of the ground water rights within the basin. The court appointed a basin water master and ordered meters to be installed on all wells. The water duty was set at 3 acre-feet per year with an additional 6 inches per year of carriage loss.

Current Challenges for Pecos Valley Producers Include Shortages and Potential Transfers By the mid-1970s, the Pecos Valley’s ground water resources were coming back into balance; now, the Pecos Valley’s greatest challenge is drought. Water

26

transfers are also a major threat to area producers.

Knowledge of water in the Pecos Valley results in people asking, “How do we get the water from the Roswell basin into other locations in the state of New Mexico?” In 2008, the Pecos Valley faced such a proposition. Speculators in the Roswell watershed proposed the construction of a privately financed pipeline that would pump approximately 7,000 acrefeet of water per year 145 miles from De Baca County to Santa Fe County, an uphill elevation change of nearly 4,000 feet.

One of our biggest concerns with the proposal was the potential effect such an action could have on the system, including impairment of the river and ground water, the public policy issues, conservation issues, and importantly, the compliance with the compact and Settlement Agreement.

This project, and others like it that propose to divert water to the areas of the state with growing urban

Roswell Ground Water Basin Overview • 300,000–375,000 acre-feet of water is pumped each year.

• More than 90 percent of the water pumped is used for irrigation.

• The basin contains more than 110,000 acres of irrigated farmland.

• About 65 percent of the region’s ground water is pumped from deep artesian aquifers in limestone formations; the remainder is pumped from shallow aquifers in sands, gravels, and valley fill materials.

• More than 75 percent of the area is managed as rangeland; the remainder is devoted to forage and vegetable crops.

• With an average elevation of 4,000– 6,900 feet, the area is home to pecans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, and hay.

Irrigation Leader

populations, could challenge the administration of New Mexico water law. In New Mexico, as in many western states, the doctrine of “prior appropriation” governs the use of ground water. The basic tenet of the law is “first in time, first in right,” which means that seniority is dictated by the dates of the original water-right declaration. In the event of a “priority call”—which could happen if the state were unable to meet its legal obligations to provide water under various treaties, laws, or agreements—junior rights would be curtailed or relinquished first. If there is not enough water to go around, the producers with the most senior rights have the safest water, whereas the most-junior owners would have to limit their use. Under the existing laws, the state engineer is required to administer water rights based upon priority. Until the state legislature changes the existing laws, the ultimate decision of whether water right transfers from agricultural areas to growing urban populations will be made by the courts.

Priority Call a Very Real Fear for Pecos Valley Producers The concern about a priority call is not a new concept for the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District (PVACD.) The lower Pecos River region was caught in the middle of a long-running battle between Texas and New Mexico over Pecos River water.

In 1948, Texas and New Mexico signed the Pecos River Compact apportioning water between the two states and prohibiting New Mexico from depleting (by man’s activities) the quantity of water delivered to the state line.

In 1974, Texas filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that New Mexico had underdelivered under the compact from 1950 to 1972 by a total of 1.2 million acre-feet. In 1988, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s claims but quantified the underdelivery at 340,000 acrefeet. New Mexico was ordered to pay $14 million to Texas for the prior underdeliveries and under the threat of major sanctions to ensure that the compact conditions were met for all future years.

As a result of the litigation, the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID) and the PVACD agreed to set aside their differences and began to work together to meet the compact delivery requirements. The two districts had a long history of disagreements over water use in the region, but in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, farmers from both districts voluntarily offered to take out wells, retire farmland, fallow fields, and make personal sacrifices in the interest of what was best for the state.

The New Mexico legislature has appropriated millions of dollars for the Interstate Stream Commission to purchase water rights or lease water to ensure state line deliveries.

Nearly 12,000 acres have been taken out of production in the Roswell Basin, and the associated water rights have Irrigation Leader

Examples of projects funded through the PVACD’s long-term, low-interest loan programs since the 1960s include • 31 miles of concrete ditch lining • 3,355+ acres of land leveling • 432 side-roll sprinkler systems • 202 center-pivot irrigation systems • 2,530 acres of drip system • 329.55 miles of low-head PVC pipe • 18.3 miles of gated pipe • 30.57 miles of underground pipe been transferred to augmentation well fields where water can be pumped to help meet CID deliveries and state line delivery requirements. Because of the efforts of the state engineer, the PVACD, CID, and other water users, New Mexico now has an approximate 100,000 acre-feet credit with Texas, and the threat of a priority call has been greatly diminished.

Producers in the Roswell Basin have made great strides to improve water conservation. While some still use floodirrigation techniques, more producers are moving toward side-roll sprinklers and center pivots. Since the 1960s, the district has provided low-interest loans to producers to implement more conservative water use plans, such as ditch lining, and more efficient irrigation systems.

Better Water Monitoring a Priority for the Pecos River Basin In the next year, the PVACD is planning to launch a pilot program to implement an electronic data system to track and monitor real-time water use in the basin.

Currently, a water master employee manually reads meters about every three weeks and calculates water use based on his readings. If a meter fails during this interval, the water master estimates water consumption using concurrent electrical readings. This system is imperfect, and the district likely loses water as a result. By implementing a SCADA system that reads the meters several times each day, failed meters can be immediately targeted and fixed, minimizing the guesswork and giving producers a much more accountable method of estimating water use.

Real-Time Data Will Help Producers Plan and Plant Accordingly At the present time, the PVACD uses a somewhat primitive system that relies heavily on manual entries in the state engineer’s office to collect data. The goal is to gather real-time, or near-real-time, data for the water deliveries.

27

At the end of the accounting period, a producer should know exactly how much water he has used and how he needs to change his operations to stay within his water right. Producers in the Pecos River Basin are on a five-year water accounting period, meaning a producer can use a maximum of 3.5 acre-feet per year, averaged out over five years. Producers can vary their water usage from year to year, as long as the five-year total use does not exceed five times the annual duty of water.

Producers typically manage their water use by alternating water-intensive crops like corn or alfalfa with less demanding crops like cotton. Under the current system, however, the lag time between the end of the growing cycle and the end of the billing cycle is so great that it is often too late for the farmer to factor in past water use when planning next year’s crop. With a real-time water-use system, the producer will be able access his account on a website and see his exact water use to date. These data will tell him whether he needs to change his land-use plans before the planting season.

Different Philosophies: Less Water, Same Yields versus Same Water, Greater Yields The PVACD encourages its users—be they municipal, agricultural or industrial—to improve efficiencies to allow for growth and increased production. This is part of the mission to conserve the

Family Farm

LLIANCE The Family

waters of the Pecos Valley. Although this viewpoint runs contrary to some views on conservation, it is important that valley producers maximize their use of limited land resources. Producers must conserve water by maximizing crops with the water they currently have. No new farmland is coming into production—in fact, farmland is shrinking—and producers must still meet the ever-growing demand for the crops these fields produce.

Aron Balok is the superintendent of the PVACD and has been with the district for about four years. He has been professionally involved in water-related issues for the past nine years. Aron came to the district from the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, where he was the south eastern regional director. Aron was raised on a cattle ranch in northwestern New Mexico and attended New Mexico State University. In 1997, he graduated with a bachelor of science in Agriculture Extension and Education.

For more information about the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District, please visit www.pvacd.com

SM

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

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

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

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Adapting Asparagus to the Imperial Valley Irrigated Crops

By Don Brock

30

A

sparagus has a long and successful production history in the United States, particularly in California. My family has been part of that history for three generations, breeding and growing asparagus for the seed and fresh markets. Most of America’s asparagus crop is of the green variety and is nutrient rich in folic acid, vitamins C and B6, thiamin, and potassium. Although American asparagus acreage and production has steadily decreased over the past 15 years, the value of fresh asparagus production has experienced a slight resurgence over the last 3, from $75.8 million in 2009 to $84.0 million in 2011.

California accounts for more than 70 percent of that production.

Primer on Asparagus

Growing Conditions

Here in the Imperial Valley, we have the advantage of harvesting early in January and February. In the summertime, however, we really struggle with the weather. The asparagus, like a human being, takes a beating in the desert valleys in July and August.

In Washington State, Michigan, or even Northern California, the asparagus does not experience the extreme heat.

Our temperatures are similar to those of Phoenix or Palm Springs. Temperatures will stay over 100 degrees Fahrenheit for over 90 days in succession. Now that would not be too bad if it cooled off at night, but that has not been the recent pattern: Our July, August, and early September nights are in the low 80s.

Generally, highs of 80 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and lows of 50 to 60 degrees throughout the year, make for favorable growing conditions. You can find good growing conditions in Northern California, around Stockton, and up in Washington State. Peru has a moderate year-round climate—it’s been said that Peru is like a greenhouse without a cover on it. Michigan is a little colder and therefore grows different varieties of asparagus.

Asparagus is a highly adaptable perennial. Harvest season extends anywhere from 60 to 90 days. Plants last 7 to 8 years on the low side, and 15 to 20 years on the high side if they are well cared for and not growing in an extreme climate.

We cut every day during the harvesting season.

Asparagus grows rapidly—4, 5, 6 inches on a warm day. Once a spear grows up to 10 or 11 inches, it must be cut. In the meantime, there is another spear shooting up. There are different stages of spears that emerge at any one time. If temperatures are extra warm, and if you can afford it, you could probably cut twice a day.

Over the past 30 years, farmers have developed and employed mechanical harvesters to cut spears with very limited success. So, as a practical matter, we still harvest by hand. Following the harvesters, workers with a wheelbarrow pick up field boxes of 25 or 30 pounds of asparagus. In some areas, tractors rigged with an extension follow the harvesters, racing behind the crews to pick up the boxes. From the field, trucks convey the boxes to the packing facility, where the asparagus is washed, weighed, sized, and packed.

Newly emerged spears ready for harvest.

Irrigation Leader

Origins of Our Varietal

In the Imperial Valley, we have come up with varieties that neither need nor want cold weather.

We are most proud of our “Early California” variety.

It has a minimal requirement for dormancy and a high tolerance for hot weather in the summer.

Our dry-climate varietal dates back to the work of my father, Warren Brock, on his experimental farm. The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) originally leased the land for the farm from the Bureau of Reclamation in the late 1940s. The IID hoped to utilize the land to determine what crops could succeed in the arid conditions of the Imperial Valley. The IID focused mostly on alfalfa, employing rolling sprinkler pipe for irrigation that at the time was probably cutting-edge technology.

Fern growth from unharvested shoots.

The soil, however, was so coarse and sandy that the number of acre-feet required to produce anything was taxes on asparagus, increasing imports from Mexico. In off the charts. After 10 years, the IID put the land up for conjunction with the elimination of trade barriers, the sublease to see whether anyone would do the farming. labor-intensive harvesting process drove a good deal of In 1958, my father landed a 15-year lease of the U.S. production abroad. Mexico and Peru now supply IID land with an option for another 15 years. It was on about two-thirds of the asparagus consumed in this that land that he created the Brock Research Center to country. cultivate varieties of fruits and vegetables adaptable to The acreage dedicated to asparagus in California, the valley. We grew citrus fruits, grapes, deciduous fruit and in the other major asparagus-producing states of trees, and dates, along with asparagus. We also employed Washington and Michigan, has dropped. However, there different irrigation techniques—some sprinkling, some are indications of resurgence in California and elsewhere drip—which were cutting edge at the time, but would be in the United States. Whether we can get the asparagus considered fairly routine today. Regular gravity farming industry reestablished remains to be seen because of was not sufficient for success. We were able to make it competition from northern Mexico and Peru, which has work because we had short runs—1/8 of a mile instead of the advantage of year-round shipments. However, U.S. 1/4 of a mile. growers can still make asparagus work if we produce The research center was a cooperative effort. While strong varieties with high yields. my father covered 100 percent of the funding, he did We have an example of that type of innovation here; receive free water from the IID up to a certain point. The next month we will doing a new planting that will U.S. Department of Agriculture was involved with some employ a drip system and utilize some new varieties that of the varietal trials; since they owned the ground, the we have been developing for three generations, going Bureau of Reclamation was also involved. back to the days of my father.

It was a valuable effort whose time has come and gone. I’m really happy when I drive out to the area Don Brock and his brother, Dave, are the owners of Brock where the research center used to be. There is now a big Seed Company, LLC, which reservoir with my father’s name on it. specializes in the cultivation of asparagus seed. They are leaders in The Industry and Its Future the breeding and production of fresh in the United States asparagus, with farming operations The asparagus industry in the United States has in the Imperial Valley. Don served changed a lot over the years due to the reduction and as executive assistant to two U.S. eventual phasing out of import duties. The Andean Trade secretaries of agriculture, Clifford Promotion and Drug Eradication Act of 1991 exempted Hardin and Earl Butz. The Brocks asparagus and other crops from U.S. tariffs to help can be reached at (760) 353-1632.

Andean countries develop alternatives to coca and other drug crops. Those exemptions were made permanent.

The North American Free Trade Agreement phased out Irrigation Leader

31

Water Law

Of Rights and Revenues: State of Arizona’s Claim to Federally Reserved Water Rights on State Trust Lands Rejected

By John Crotty

O

n September 12, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court denied the State of Arizona’s attempt to lay claim to water rights on state trust lands and the lucrative revenue stream that would accompany the leasing or sale of those rights. At play were nearly 8 million acre-feet of water—a volume greater than all the water consumed in Arizona in a year. With existing water-use priorities at stake, cities, tribes, and irrigation districts stood in opposition to the State’s argument that it had federally reserved water rights on state trust lands. In a unanimous decision (In Re General Adjudication, Case No. WC11-0001-IR), the supreme court held that the State of Arizona does not possess a federally reserved water right for state trust land.

Legal and Historical Context

The origins of the issue of water rights on state trust lands date back to Arizona’s territorial days and eventual statehood in 1912. With the passage of the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act in 1910, the federal government ceded more than 10 million acres of land to the State of Arizona to hold in trust for the benefit of public education and other public purposes. The people of Arizona consented to

32

the terms and conditions of the Enabling Act with the ratification of the state constitution.

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) currently manages Arizona’s trust lands, which can be leased for its highest and best use or sold to the highest bidder at public auction. The State has sold over 1 million acres of trust land to generate revenues for the trust beneficiaries. Although a majority of trust land is leased for agriculture, grazing, rights of ways, and commercial purposes.

The events and proceedings that set the stage for the supreme court’s ruling are bound up in a longstanding and complex series of steam adjudications for the Gila and Little Colorado Rivers.

General stream adjudications are Arizona legal proceedings that determine the extent and priority of water rights, pursuant to state, federal, and Indian law, in a river system. Efforts to determine rights in the Gila River and its tributaries are, according to Professor Joseph Feller, “the largest and longest judicial proceeding in the history of Arizona.” As the Arizona Supreme Court notes, more than 14,000 and 82,000 claims have been made in the Little Colorado and Gila River adjudications respectively.

In the early 2000s, Arizona’s attorney general, as advocate for the ASLD, moved

Irrigation Leader

for partial summary judgment in the Little Colorado and Gila River adjudications to recognize federally reserved water rights for state trust lands. In 2005, the superior court in Apache and Maricopa counties appointed a special master to take evidence, hear arguments, and make a recommendation in a detailed report; in 2010, the superior court granted the master’s motion to approve his findings and adopted them. The court held that the “trust lands . . . as a matter of law, cannot be deemed to possess federal implied reserved water rights.” In 2011, the attorney general appealed the approval of the report’s findings and the Arizona Supreme Court granted the petition for appeal.

The Argument

The State of Arizona argued that the United States Congress implied federal reserved water rights for state trust lands in both the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act and several territorial land grants that designated state trust lands. The argument goes as follows: the federal government, the original owner of the lands that became the state of Arizona, has powers pursuant to the Commerce Clause and Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution to reserve rights to use water on its lands; it may reserve such rights explicitly, or implicitly, such as when it withdraws its lands from the public domain and reserves them for a public purpose. In prior case law, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the implied reservation of water rights with respect to Indian lands, national monuments, military bases, and national forests.

The State of Arizona claimed that that United States reserved the rights to use water on federal lands that were then ceded to the State.

The Import of the Argument

The question of whether the water rights on state trust lands were reserved is significant. The right to use Arizona surface and subsurface water is governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation—the first to divert water and put it to beneficial use has priority over subsequent users. The right to the continued use of that water can be lost if the water is not used.

On the other hand, the federal reservation of water rights enshrines priority by operation of law, trumping other claims. Those reserved rights are preserved whether the claimed water was actually put to use or not on the date of reservation. Therefore, if the water rights on trust lands were reserved, the State could have priority over longstanding uses by municipalities, farmers, and

Irrigation Leader

industries. Arizona water claims on trust lands would effectively be upended, and future adjudications would be complicated further.

The Ruling

The Arizona Supreme Court parsed the documents ceding lands to Arizona and determined that the United States did not withdraw land from the public domain and reserve it as state trust land. The court found that federal land grants occurred before parcels were identified and selected for trust protection. Moreover, the purpose of the state trust lands was to support state interests—in this case, the support of common schools—not federal ones.

Thus, the lands could not have been reserved for a federal purpose. Finally, even if the land had been withdrawn and held in trust, the court found no evidence suggesting that Congress intended to reserve water rights on trust lands.

Instead, Congress intended to boost the New Mexico Territory’s (in what was to become the State of Arizona) population by ensuring that “the region’s scarce water supply was obtainable by settlers rather than reserved.”

The Impact

The ruling provides some clarity and certainty for current water rights holders and those seeking adjudication of claims in the Little Colorado and Gila River systems. A ruling in favor of the State could have destabilized existing claims and substantially changed current allocation priorities. That will not be the case . . . for now.

A cash-strapped and debt-ridden Arizona government is not about to roll over. In its efforts to generate more revenues for public education and for the ASLD, it appears that the State will continue to pursue water claims on trust lands in court. However, it will have to make arguments within the context of Arizona’s prior appropriation law.

John Crotty is counsel to Water Strategies, LLC, and senior writer for Irrigation Leader magazine.

John may be contacted by phoning (202) 740-3142 or e-mailing john.crotty@waterstrategies.com.

33

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Pivot stuck again? Put your log chain away.

RAAFT TRAcks will solve your problem.

by PolyTech LLC

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

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

For more information, please visit our web site at

www.RAAFT.com

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

261-5774

Manager's Profile

Paul Deveau Paul Deveau has been a fixture of the Boise Project for the past 33 years, the last 7 of which he served as project manager. The Boise Project Board of Control (BPBC), Arrowrock Division operates and maintains facilities for five irrigation districts that encompass approximately 165,000 acres in southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon.

River rights and an additional 600,000 acre-feet from storage reservoirs above Boise supply the project. Project facilities include one diversion dam, five power plants, one pumping station, and over 460 canals, laterals, and drains that stretch for more than a thousand miles. As Mr. Deveau is retiring at the end of the year, Irrigation Leader talked with him about his successful career.

Paul standing next to the Mason Creek facility. Below the last drop structure are upright lava stones, placed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the early 1940s, which help dissipate energy and slow the flow of water.

36

John Crotty: Can you briefly describe your work as project manager?

Paul Deveau: As BPBC manager, I am responsible for carrying out the policies and programs of the Boise Project’s board of directors, overseeing project operations and maintenance, and supervising 105 employees. A typical morning involves interacting with all four of my watermasters to coordinate what goes in and what goes out of our main canals, and to manage Lake Lowell (an off-river storage facility), which we use as a reregulation point between our upper and lower systems.

The project is not like it used to be; there is no shortage of people to deal with—engineers, developers, contractors, landowners, local government, the Bureau of Reclamation—I receive a lot of help from my staff. We all put in a lot of long hours, but that’s what it takes to make things work.

John Crotty: How did you get your start?

Paul Deveau: I grew up in New England.

When I was a kid, I worked in the shipyard with my dad during the summers. I then worked for a mason contractor and by the time I was 18 years old, I could build a house from start to finish. I joined the Air Force and attended several classes and schools. As a heavy equipment operator in the service, I learned a lot about water and drainage.

I found myself in Idaho as an OJT [on-the-job training] instructor. I fell in love with the West. I knew after three months that I would not be going back East to live.

After my discharge, I built homes for several years as Deveau Construction. The business did very well, but in the late ’70s, interest rates went up so high, it was hard to sell houses. I thought I’d take off a few months until the interest rates went back down. Well, hanging around the house, that lasted about a week. I really wanted to get back into heavy equipment, so I applied for a position at the project. I didn’t come with the intention of staying, but things got interesting, and the rest is history.

John Crotty: In what capacity did you work for the Boise Project over your career?

Paul Deveau: I started on the regular maintenance crew and ran a CAT. I served as the foreman for about 2 years, then as our division 2 watermaster for five irrigation seasons. After that, I moved to the main office where I was the assistant project manager for 16 years. I have now been the Irrigation Leader

project manager for the last 7 years. I did it the hard way I guess, but there have been a lot of good days.

John Crotty: Describe what it is like to work with a board of directors.

Paul Deveau: I share most everything with the board. Among the five districts, we have 19 directors, 9 of whom serve on what we call the “big board.” There is usually a lot of energy at the table—so much energy and so many people from different walks of life—and somehow it all comes together with that certain expertise. Working together and making decisions have made our relationship successful. There is no one-man show. I always say, “Collectively, we make a better decision.”

John Crotty: What have been your biggest challenges as a manager?

Paul Deveau: Probably putting together our computer system. We had purchased and set up an accounting package to automate our accounting system.

The accounting package served as a model for other areas of our work. Our water program tracks eight different kinds of water (including excess, allotment, carryover, and special contract) and follows water transfers and accounts for nearly 40,000 customers. The system now links the field offices, main office, and the districts, updating account information and water usage so we know exactly the status of each landowner account.

When we used to do it by hand, it might be the first of next month before I could tell you how much water you have remaining. Now I can tell you what it is as of 5:00 last night. Currently, we are working on a system that addresses water flow. We recently obtained a grant to complete a flow pack program now in progress.

Right now we are working on OCR [optical character recognition]. We are creating electronic copies of all of our minutes, our annual reports, planning and zoning records, and project history since 1926. This will allow us to run keyword searches of all of our records. We’ve really come along way.

John Crotty: Currently, what are your biggest challenges?

Paul Deveau: Without a doubt, urbanization and aging infrastructure would rank as my two biggest concerns. Our role as a water provider is constantly changing. Agricultural ground is quickly giving way to residential development. We deliver as much or more water to urban area subdivisions as we did when it was farm ground. Additional storage is always on the radar.

We also have to really watch for encroachments so we don’t get boxed out of what we are trying to do.

John Crotty: What are you most proud of as a manager?

Paul Deveau: In maintaining a high quality of service, I am most proud of the people who work with Irrigation Leader

me—my crew and my staff. There is no such thing as a one-man crew. If you have a one-man show, you’ve got the wrong guy. The people here have been fantastic. My people have always been my greatest asset.

John Crotty: Would you like to add anything else regarding your work as manager in water resources?

Paul Deveau: A manager’s responsibility is not always placing items on the maintenance list. Most managers are faced with small budgets and an overwhelming to-do list. Our toughest judgment call is removing items from the maintenance list or placing other items ahead of another. It is not always easy stretching your dollars in order to stay within the year’s budget. Safety and facility integrity must always remain at the top of the list. If a manager states a certain item can wait a couple more years to be replaced, then it better still be there in a couple more years. Maybe that’s what they call stress.

Unfortunately time does not allow for discussion of all the other essential areas of irrigation management: emergencies and response time, automation, GPS/GIS mapping, surveying, weed control, shop maintenance, materials and soil compaction, and repairs that must be made with the water still flowing or knowing when it’s time to pull the plug for more serious attention. Legal issues, public relations, budgets, and emergency funding are certainly all part of a manager’s life.

Here at the project, we have put together an outside team of professionals (engineers, GEO techs, hydrologists) who can be summoned at a moment’s notice. Most irrigation entities are usually too small to carry this type of expertise in-house. It comes down to knowing who to surround yourself with.

We try to always carry a first, second, and third string of management people. To promote from within your own organization, you must maintain excellent opportunities for training and advancement. This is part of our operating rules. It helps maintain pride and develops a strong inner structure. After 33 years, I would hope that people miss me for a week or so; after that, it’s business as usual.

John Crotty: What advice would you give to other district managers?

Paul Deveau: If you look at your crew, and you don’t see anything wrong; if you look at your equipment, and you don’t see anything wrong; if you look at your relationship with all of the different entities involved with your project, and you don’t see anything wrong; then you’re what’s wrong. You have to continually look at what you are doing, how you do it, and stay up with the times. If you don’t, you’ll be left behind.

Over the years, my wife Christine and I have pulled a lot of all-nighters during the most exciting and rewarding times of our life. We will truly miss this life of an irrigation manager.

37

ADVERTISEMENT

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS Quincy Columbia Basin Irrigation District Staff Engineer

Project Delivery Engineer - Mechanical Fort Collins, CO

This flexible, hands-on role will primarily be responsible for supporting the Engineering Director in project execution throughout the Americas. The successful candidate will be responsible for product selection/sizing and review of civil installation works required for all projects. They will also serve as a Project Manager, working with client’s engineers to oversee implementation of Rubicon’s hardware, software, and SCADA solutions. As needed the role will generate CAD drawings and support the field technicians in installation, commissioning, diagnostics, warehouse logistics support, product installation, and product manufacturing and assembly.

Bachelor degree in Mechanical or Civil Engineering required with 2 to 6 years of experience/knowledge in agricultural irrigation or water industry preferred.

Visit us at www.rubiconwater.com or contact us at 877-440-6080 to learn more about Rubicon Water and current career opportunities.

Send your resumes to employment@rubiconwater.com Rubicon Water is an Equal Opportunity Employer

Individual sought to perform civil engineering work related to designing, planning, reviewing, and inspecting District facilities and private facilities; performs technical and feasibility studies and makes recommendations based on the results. Individual must have working knowledge of Microsoft Office, AutoCAD and ArcInfo GIS software, ability to utilize survey equipment, generate plans, charts, and graphs; possess the knowledge and ability to create, interpret and communicate engineering plans and specifications of hydraulic principles and practices, particularly with regard to open channel, pipe flow and pumping systems; working knowledge of public works construction; basic knowledge of mechanical and electrical fundamentals related to pumps, motors and valves; ability to read and write legal descriptions; ability to present written/oral reports that can be understood and utilized by technical and non-technical recipients. Position requires Bachelor's Degree in civil engineering or related engineering field from an Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET) college or university, and Engineer-in-Training (EIT) certificate. Professional Engineer license preferred. Must live in, or be willing to relocate within District boundaries. Wage range: $24.5332.40/hr plus benefit package. A required application and complete job description are available at QCBID headquarters, 1720 S Central Avenue, Quincy, WA between the hours of 7:30am and 4:30pm or by calling (509) 787-3591 and must be received on or before 4:30pm, Friday, October 26, 2012.

Mail application materials to: QCBID Attn: Human Resources PO Box 188 Quincy, WA 98848

For information on posting to the Classified Listings, please e-mail Irrigation.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Irrigation Leader Advertising Works 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 nearly 600 irrigation district general managers and their respective boards of directors in the 17 western states; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Congress; all western state legislators' and governors' offices; and a variety of western water-related organizations, engineering firms, and interested individuals. In other words, advertising in Irrigation Leader is like having over 12,000 people stop by your vendor booth.

“We are getting business from your magazine!

Please continue our ad.”

~Jill Carding, AquaLastic®

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

Irrigation Leader

2012 CALENDAR

Oct. 10–12 Oct. 10–12 Oct. 11–12 Oct. 23 Oct. 22–23 Oct. 24–26 Oct. 30 Oct. 31–Nov. 2 Nov. 2–6 Nov. 27–30 Nov. 29–30 Dec. 4–7 Dec. 5–7 Dec. 12–14 Jan. 22–24 Jan. 23–24 Jan. 24–25 Jan. 30–Feb. 1

Western States Water Council, Fall Council Meetings, San Antonio, TX Western Coalition of Arid States, 2012 Fall Conference, Tucson, AZ Oregon Water Resources Congress, Technology Seminar, Bend, OR Utah Water Users Assn., Utah Water Summit, Provo, UT TruePoint Solutions Annual User Conference, Fresno, CA Texas Water Conservation Assn., Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX Columbia Basin Development League, Conf. & Annual Mtg., Moses Lake, WA National Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Coronado, CA Irrigation Assn., Irrigation Show and Education Conference, Orlando, FL Oregon Water Resources Congress, Annual Conference, Hood River, OR Idaho Water Users Assn., Winter Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID Assn. of California Water Agencies, Fall Conference, San Diego, CA Washington State Water Resources Assn., Annual Conference, Spokane, WA Colorado River Water Users Assn., Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV Idaho Water Users Assn., Annual Convention, Boise, ID Irrigation Leader Operations and Managerment Workshop, Phoenix, AZ Texas Water Conservation Assn./Texas Rural Water Assn., Water Laws Conference, Austin, TX Colorado Water Congress, Annual Convention, Denver, CO

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

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

Past issues of Irrigation Leader are archived at

www.WaterandPowerReport.com