Irrigation Leader October 2016

Volume 7 Issue 9

October 2016

Making a Good First Impression: A Conversation About Public Outreach With Roosevelt Water Conservation District General Manager Shane Leonard

An Idea Man and a Doer

By Kris Polly

S

hane Leonard is unique among irrigation district managers. His great-grandfather helped build the Roosevelt Water Conservation District and his grandfather and father both served as general managers to the district. So as a fourth-generation district employee and general manager, Shane is well acquainted with irrigation.

He also has a passion for solving problems and finding better solutions.

A theme I hear on my travels throughout the West is that the general public has little or no understanding of irrigation or agriculture. People do not understand where their water and food come from. Why would they? Unless an individual grew up on an irrigating farm, had family who farmed, or made a living associated in some way with irrigation and agriculture, how would they know anything about irrigation and agriculture?

A couple of years ago, Shane and I were talking about this subject over the phone. We talked about how information about irrigation and agriculture should be taught in schools at the elementary level and how summer break offered an opportunity for irrigation districts to work with teachers. The basic idea was for irrigation districts to create a summer program for elementary teachers to learn about irrigation and then to help provide those teachers with materials for their classrooms. A few weeks after our initial conversation, I phoned Shane again about the idea.

He said, “We’ve already done it. My board liked the idea, Irrigation Leader magazine will sponsor an Irrigation Leader Educational Tour of irrigation and irrigation-related infrastructure in New Zealand. The dates of the tour are February 18–25, 2017.

Please note that we will award an additional door prize prize-credit (in the form of reimbursement) to be applied to the Irrigation Leader Educational Tour of New Zealand at our annual Operations and Management Workshop at the Crown Plaza Phoenix Airport Hotel, Arizona, on February 1–2, 2017.

and we have hired a former elementary teacher full time to create the program and work directly with the local school.”

From concept to implementation in a period of weeks! I was shocked at the time, but now I know that is just how he is. Shane is an idea man and a doer. He gets things done quickly.

Another great example of Shane’s ability to find solutions is his Neighborhood Liaison Department. With a rapidly urbanizing district, Shane faces more challenges interacting with the public than other districts. The Neighborhood Liaison Department employs two dedicated individuals who work directly with customers to answer questions and provide information. The work of these individuals reduces conflicts and allows the district’s zanjeros (ditch riders) to focus their time on moving and managing water.

While no two irrigation districts are the same, there is much to be learned from Shane’s example of solving problems.

We hope you enjoy this issue of Irrigation Leader magazine and find information, an idea, or solution that is helpful.

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 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal government agencies.

He may be contacted at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

2017 New Zealand Water Leader Educational Tour

The cost of the tour is $2,000.00 per person, which includes hotel accommodations, meals, and ground transport, but not airfare.

Individuals wishing to participate must register and pay their tour fee by December 1, 2016. Our tour space is limited to 20 participants. For more information and to register, please see our website at www.WaterStrategies.com.

Companies that have expressed interest in participating and sponsoring the tour include: • Alligare • Rubicon Water • WaterTronics If you are interested in receiving information about the tour as a potential participant or your company is interested in being a sponsor, please e-mail Kris Polly at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com, and we will add you to our information list.

OCTOBER 2016

C O N T E N T S 2

An Idea Man and a Doer

4

Making a Good First Impression: A Conversation About Public Outreach With Roosevelt Water Conservation District General Manager Shane Leonard Putting the Farmer First: A Conversation With Congressman Jim Costa The Opportunity to Create Lasting Water Solutions at the End of the 114th Congress: A Conversation With Johnny Amaral of the Westlands Water District

VOLUME 7

ISSUE 9

Irrigation Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for July/August and November/December by Water Strategies LLC 4 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003 STAFF: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Crotty, Senior Writer Matthew Dermody, 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. For more information, please contact John Crotty at (202) 698-0690 or john.crotty@waterstrategies.com.

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.

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.

Copyright Š 2016 Water Strategies LLC. Irrigation Leader relies on the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contributor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Irrigation Leader magazine, its editors, or Water Strategies LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Irrigation Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies LLC or Irrigation Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

COVER PHOTO: Shane Leonard, general manager of the Roosevelt Water Conservation District.

10

14

DISTRICT FOCUS

16

Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District

By Mark Clark

WATER LAW

20

Arizona Irrigation District Tort Liability

24

By Russel R. Rea

Does Anyone Give A Dam About Hydropower?

By Robert S. Lynch

IRRIGATED CROPS

28

Growing Green(s) All Year Round

INTERNATIONAL

30

Irrigation Leader International Exchange Program in Idaho

THE INNOVATORS

36

Terrestrial Weed Control in Solano Irrigation District

Irrigation Leader

By Kris Polly

By Jeff Null

3

Making a Good First Impression:

L

A Conversation About Public Outreach With Roosevelt Water Conservation District General Manager Shane Leonard

ocated on the eastern edge of the Phoenix metro area, the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD), with a service area of approximately 40,000 acres, delivers water to farms, ranches, subdivisions, schools, and businesses.

RWCD’s service area overlaps with the fast-growing cities of Mesa and Chandler and the town of Gilbert. Growth has its challenges, and RWCD has implemented creative solutions to communicate with its customers, new and old. These solutions include developing a water education program, holding community outreach meetings, and improving the district’s social media and online presence.

At the forefront of these efforts is General Manager Shane Leonard, the fourth generation of his family to work for RWCD. Shane leads a team of 46 in delivering water to this rapidly changing district. Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke to Shane about RWCD’s education program, its customer outreach, and what everyone should know about being part of an irrigation district.

Kris Polly: Please tell us about your education outreach program.

Shane Leonard: We are tooling the program to a fourth- or fifth-grade level. The natural fit for it seems to be in the earth sciences curriculum. So as teachers are talking about the water cycle, they would integrate the conversation about Arizona’s water sources and framework into the overall science curriculum. It would be a four- to six-week program.

To do that, we need to attract and train those teachers.

We are working on a funded internship program for two to four teachers each summer to bring them in and let them experience how the district operates. Part of the training would be to take them around the district, show them our facilities, and involve them in our operations. The next step would be to introduce them to the larger water infrastructure of the state, for example, Salt River Project’s storage dams and the Central Arizona Project system, before introducing them to the more “paper” water side of our sourcing, such as Arizona’s Colorado River entitlement and groundwater policy.

I believe the internship should be paid since we will be asking them to devote 8 to 10 weeks of their summer for training at a time when teachers generally try to pick up extra pay. The internship would provide teachers with

4

RWCD General Manager Shane Leonard standing on a radial gate structure on the district's main canal in the town of Gilbert.

a curriculum that they would then integrate into their own teaching plan. The curriculum would be preapproved by those individuals in the school district in charge of curriculum.

In the next year or two, we will try to bring on our first round of teacher-interns. After this first course of training, we will determine what was effective and what should change. Typically, the first try at anything is never perfect.

We’ll also plan for updates to the program as issues come up in real time: shortages on the Colorado River, how presidential elections affect western water, things of that nature.

Kris Polly: How is the program being implemented?

Shane Leonard: We have been working mainly with the Queen Creek Unified School District. The district’s superintendent and curriculum supervisor want to see something in draft form first before putting it into their Irrigation Leader

programming for ultimate approval.

While we continue to work on the education program, we have really begun to combine our education efforts with the district’s social media program. For example, RWCD continues to work with Keith Yaskin for our media consulting needs. This has prompted us to change some of the focus of our more recent videos to help further an understanding of Arizona’s specific water issues. One of the education program’s core principles is educating kids about where their water comes from and how important it is, not just for use in their home, but also by agriculture.

Our belief is that by adding a video component to this effort, we will get kids to be more involved.

When my kids were younger, I used to go in on career day at their school and talk about my work. I always asked the students, “Where does your water come from?”

Unfortunately, if I did get an answer, typically, it was wrong. More than one student said they got it from the sewer. All they understood about water was that it went down the shower or sink and that their mom or dad told them that water ended up in the sewer. In their minds, it was coming back up to the tap.

The video we are planning right now is an education video focused on where our water comes from; it is targeted toward both district customers and the participants in the education program. We are interviewing kids and their parents independently, comparing and contrasting those answers, and then talking about where the water comes from. One of the things the school district likes about this project is that we can show the video in a select group of classrooms, see if it resonates, and work it into the rest of the potential curriculum.

One issue slowing progress on our education front involves fiscal challenges Arizona’s school system is facing, i.e., a lack of funding for education. Arizona consistently ranks 49th in the country on education spending. One of the things that has made it difficult to present our program to school districts is the fact that they are so focused on trying to maintain funding to keep the schools staffed and keep the standard curriculum moving, they have little time for anything else. There are two interrelated problems: (1) we need to place our content in the curriculum so that it makes sense and complements what students are required to learn and (2) a large number of school districts in central Arizona (including Queen Creek) are involved with bonds and override votes, so there isn’t much time available for them to devote to curriculum proposals that go beyond the standard school district operations. As such, that means the overall process is taking a lot more time that I originally thought it would to actually implement the program.

Despite the slow process, the school district is still excited about it. We have received interest from the Morrison Institute, which is an Arizona State University Irrigation Leader

Left: Tabby Langland, RWCD water operations administrator.

She assists with implementation of the education program and coordinates the neighborhood meeting events. Right: Brad Strader, RWCD water operations manager and district engineer. He manages the neighborhood liaison and media outreach programs for the district.

think tank; the Arizona Farm Bureau; and the Western Growers Association. But they all want to see what we are talking about in practice before committing to providing assistance, which I can certainly understand. And since we are realistically looking at another two or three years before the curriculum is actually being taught in the classroom, it will be a while before we can add that level of support, if all things stay the same. What I am learning is that it takes a very long time to get folks comfortable with this type of topic and to weave this subject matter into an education curriculum.

Kris Polly: Have you tried to work with other districts to get them involved?

Shane Leonard: Much like other industries, an irrigation district is not an irrigation district is not an irrigation district. Many do not deal with the same urbanization and water issues that we do, and most are not set up—from a staffing perspective as well as a funding perspective—as we are. From RWCD’s perspective, we would like to see a curriculum catered to eastern Maricopa County. That may not be the case for a district in the western part of the county or in Yuma on the Colorado River.

There are still a lot of districts that are simply a water in, water out operation. If they get into a situation like ours, where they are dealing with urbanization and have a need for more of a media presence, then a program like this would be something I believe they should invest in and implement.

Kris Polly: What is the benefit of the program to the district?

Shane Leonard: The primary benefit for RWCD is an educated electorate, an educated customer, and an educated landowner. Right now, more people than ever 5

recognize that they are in RWCD’s service boundaries (especially for taxing purposes), but they don’t know why.

They don’t understand the district.

They don’t understand the interaction between RWCD and the cities or towns with overlapping service jurisdiction. A lot of people nowadays are recognizing that we show up on their tax rolls, but are left to wonder why they are paying us and what the benefit is for doing so.

Our plan is to be able to get the RWCD's neighborhood information out to a younger generation liaisons Simon Wallace (left) and Chance Wilding. that we hope sticks around. We want them to be able to know that RWCD exists and why and understand that the reason they are able to live here is because of the work RWCD doing now to improve the knowledge base of your of our irrigation district. Most importantly, I want the current customers? How are you reaching out to them? younger generation to understand that if it weren’t for the people who formed RWCD and like entities, they more Shane Leonard: We start by recognizing that no one than likely wouldn’t be living in central Arizona. typically wants to talk to us when we are doing a great job.

From a broader perspective, the idea is to educate They always contact us when they believe we have done Arizonans on water issues. As we have talked about something wrong. So from 2013 to 2015, we took a look at before, the populous here is so new, and they are from all our incident reports from our subdivision customers and such disparate areas—California, Florida, Montana, New smaller-acreage customers to determine what issues were York—that they don’t understand what it takes for them related to those deliveries. That information served as the basis to receive water from their tap to drink or through an for the district’s social media program, which began with a irrigation port to grow grass in the front yard. While standard website and then a Facebook page. We started with Arizona has done a magnificent job of conserving water the idea of providing basic information about the district: and storing water for future use, it has done an abysmal job contact information and an interactive map that enables users of telling people about it and getting them to buy into the to determine where they are in relation to the district. process that has enabled us to accomplish that.

Since other districts had been doing this for years, there For example, my wife and I are high school sweethearts. was a large footprint for us to follow. Once we got through We have been together a long time. She has been with me that process and people had basic information—like how to every step of the way as my career progressed with RWCD, contact us—we then took the next step with the help of Keith but when I start talking about water issues, she looks at me Yaskin. We determined the best way for us to use social media at times as if she has no clue what I am talking about. It was visually. In 2015, we started creating and posting a series is a humbling experience to say that I have done this all of of videos crafted exclusively for customers of the district and my life, my family has done it for four generations, but I posting them to our website and Facebook pages: how to have failed to impart basic information about my work to come in and set up an account, what to expect when you are my wife. ordering water, and how to order water. From there, we began Another primary goal of this education program is to focusing more on our Facebook page, including more humanbuild public trust in the work of irrigation districts. It is interest stories, from wildlife we have seen out in the district to a challenge because water can be so technical, and people interesting stories about community members. can get lost in the minutiae. The acronyms alone will mess In 2016, we began what I consider to be the second phase people up and turn them off to a better understanding of of our outreach program. We created and staffed a new water issues and policy matters. department, the Neighborhood Liaison Department. Our Hopefully, we can create a blueprint here for other neighborhood liaisons go out into the field with the schedule districts and agencies to get basic water information out to of water for our subdivision customers and, in essence, audit the general public in a more effective way. those deliveries to help make sure the water gets where it is supposed to go. If those deliveries are not getting where Kris Polly: The education program is a long-term they are supposed to go, our liaisons are in the field acting as project with the goal of building the next generation’s “hotshot crewman” in essence, addressing issues before they knowledge about water and water systems. What is become a real problem.

6

Irrigation Leader

Newcomers to the area have a tendency not to open their front doors and meet their neighbors. We’ll show up to a house where someone has complained about flooding and ask if he or she has spoken to a neighbor. Nine times out of 10, the response is, “I have never even met my neighbors. Can you talk to them for me?” When one of our zanjeros has to go out of their way to do those kinds of tasks, it affects his schedule and his ability to move water through our system. That is one of the main reasons why we created the liaison position. We have two liaisons right now.

We have seen a 35–40 percent decrease in reported incidents of flooding, no water, and low-head issues simply because we have dedicated those two positions for these specific purposes. The thought was that we might recoup those stranded labor costs in two to four years. We are accomplishing that goal this year, because we are solving problems before they show up.

Kris Polly: How do the liaisons work with the zanjeros?

Shane Leonard: Essentially, the liaisons are an operating division within the zanjero department. The zanjeros know that before they have to worry about a subdivision issue, the liaisons have gone to check if the water is doing what it is supposed to be doing. The liaisons also become another set of hands out in the field if the department gets really busy with unplanned changes, water stoppages, or other similar issues. The presence of the liaison also ensures that the zanjeros can focus on their main task: canal and delivery operations.

Our liaisons have strong customer service backgrounds, not necessarily water delivery backgrounds. We were looking for people to help us with customer service and provide that first line of communication. You don’t get a second chance at making a first impression. That is particularly true with water delivery. It only takes one sour experience for a customer to set that as their opinion of the district, and they will remember that experience for years.

In concert with the creation of the liaison positions, we have also started neighborhood meetings. The district started scheduling meetings for the approximately 90 subdivisions to which we deliver water. We spend some of the time talking about the basics of our operations and services. Most of the meeting time, however, is spent listening to customers talk about issues they are having with their deliveries and discussing potential solutions.

It has worked extremely well. We have had four meetings thus far. At each of those meetings, the groups have selected a community irrigation representative who will be the primary contact when they do have issues. Very few of our subdivisions have homeowners’ associations, so there is little centralized communication. By selecting community irrigation representatives, they are selecting Irrigation Leader

people who can help coordinate activities inside the neighborhood, from community ditch cleaning day to pitching in to fund a valve fix in someone’s home.

We encourage those activities. If our communities designate a day everyone will go out a clean a ditch, we will bring juice, coffee, and doughnuts to make it a community event.

Urbanizing irrigation districts need to realize that if they are going to continue to exist, and if they are going to plan for future operations, they need to incorporate these neighborhood services and public outreach programs.

In a vacuum of information, people will create their own information.

The district investigated and researched neighborhood outreach issues extensively before moving down this path. We didn’t come up with this all on our own. We went out and sought experts and looked at programs that we thought were good. For other districts experiencing urbanization, know that you do not have to recreate the wheel. Find out what will work well for you based on what programs are out there, and then go institute it.

Ultimately, we are really giving our customers a way to voice and resolve existing issues in a way they were not able to before.

Of course all of this is possible because I have a board of directors that is supportive and enthusiastic about implementing new ideas. We are talking about board members whose families have been here for generations.

They have really taken to what we are doing. Without the support of my board, none of this could have happened.

Kris Polly: In this current election season, what should every candidate—at the local, state, and federal level— know about irrigation districts?

Shane Leonard: There is a reason that there is a populous here in central Arizona to elect them in the first place: because of the efforts of entities like RWCD that helped bring water to this area. Candidates need to familiarize themselves with the water history in their area and in the state. Also, candidates need to get beyond the call to conserve water. Everybody understands that. You can only conserve so much water before you are out of it.

Our candidates need to move beyond the bumper sticker notion of water policy. They need to really learn the issues.

They set the water policies and laws that affect all of us.

Here in Arizona, candidates need to remember that they live in a desert. The people who work in water are doing their best to ensure that the state’s economic engines, its companies, and its universities are able to do good work here because of irrigation districts and other water providers, not in spite of us. Without water, none of that is possible.

7

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Putting the Farmer First:

A Conversation With Congressman Jim Costa

C

ongressman Jim Costa is the representative for California’s 16th congressional district, the heart of the Central Valley. Congressman Costa was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005. Raised on a dairy farm, Congressman Costa is a third-generation farmer.

He sits on both the House Natural Resources Committee and the Agriculture Committee, and he has dedicated his career to addressing the needs and concerns of farmers and ranchers.

Congressman Costa has also worked to find common-sense solutions to combat drought and encourage the development of water supply infrastructure. Last year, he worked with Congressman Valadao to introduce the Western Water and American Food Security Act, which sought to provide muchneeded relief to Central Valley farmers in need of water. Back in May, Congressman Costa introduced the San Luis Unit Drainage Resolution Act, which would authorize agreements to resolve all claims against the United States for its failure to appropriately manage the agricultural drainage water for the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Congressman Costa about the pressing need to address water infrastructure in California and across the United States, the impressive improvements in on-farm water conservation and food production, and the role California will play in feeding a growing world.

Kris Polly: Congressman, thank you for speaking with me. The water wars in California have gone on for decades, and there seems to be no end in sight. While the California drought adds urgency, the state has dealt with drought conditions in years past. Why do you think there is more urgency now to pass water legislation than ever before?

Congressman Costa: There is more urgency because we cannot continue to go on as we have and function with this broken system. Our population continues to grow. The demands on the system are only growing as they relate to providing a reliable water supply for agriculture and our cities, and to address our environmental issues. Those factors combined have created more urgency than we have had in the past for many members of Congress, though the representatives from the San Joaquin Valley have been urging action for years.

The important point as we struggle to reach political agreements necessary for success—and as I try to impress upon all the parties—doing nothing, not fixing this broken water system, results in everyone losing. The fact is that we cannot sustain our agricultural productivity without fixing this broken water system. Cities in California won’t be able to continue to prosper without fixing this broken Congressman Costa touring New Exchequer Dam.

10

Irrigation Leader

water system. The environmental issues out there, as they relate to fisheries and water quality, will only continue to decline unless we fix the system. The status quo is simply unacceptable.

Kris Polly: Why has a solution to the water crisis not been enacted, even though the U.S. House of Representatives has passed bills every year since 2010 that would have provided relief?

Congressman Costa: Politics. The legislation that passes the House usually passes on a party-line vote with support from a few Democrats, including me. We need consensus among the majority of members from the California delegation and our senators to get a bipartisan California water bill enacted into law. Unfortunately, regional differences and the resulting politics have prevented these compromises from taking place.

Clearly, there are multiple solutions to fixing our broken water system, including using technology to fine tune reservoir operations and increase efficiency, adding to our water supply through additional reservoirs and groundwater banks, fixing the plumbing system in the [Sacramento River] delta, and employing more efficient irrigation and plumbing systems. Desalinization and conservation in our rural and urban areas are also part of the solution. All these tools have to be implemented in a way that makes the most sense for each region, because what works for some regions doesn’t work for others.

Kris Polly: As someone who has been in Congress for nearly 12 years, what do you think is the greatest attribute you bring to the negotiating table, and how has that furthered progress on getting water legislation enacted?

Congressman Costa: Working on a bipartisan basis on the issue for more than 30 years with my Republican and Democratic colleagues has given me the credibility to build bridges even when negotiations have broken down. I think that is reflected in the incremental progress that we have made.

Over the last four years, during this drought, we have approved projects that have bought additional water supply to try to provide some more reliability. Federal grants of $233 million have brought in an additional 194,000 acre-feet of water. Four years ago, we were finally able to implement the [Delta–Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct] Intertie project that had been on the shelf for 20 years. As a result of that project, which is a pipeline that more efficiently moves water from the Delta–Mendota Canal to the California Aqueduct, we were able to create 89,000 acre-feet of water for California’s Central Valley.

Irrigation Leader

Congressman Costa touring TD Willey Farms in Madera, California.

TD Willey Farms is a California member of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

That project addressed canal conveyance conditions that had restricted use of the C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant to less than its design capacity.

This year, we were able to complete another long-term project that was started over 10 years ago. The North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program groundbreaking took place three weeks ago. The Del Puerto Water District, which is an agricultural water district, partnered with the cities of Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres to use their treated water for irrigation. It amounts to 48,000 acre-feet a year over the course of a 40-year contract.

This year, I got language in the House-passed Water Resources Development Act that will enable the Merced Irrigation District to pursue efforts to raise the spillway gates on New Exchequer Dam. Once completed, the district will be able to add, on a 10-year average, about 10,000 acre-feet of additional supply each year.

While these aren’t the home runs we need—from the construction of the delta tunnels to raising Shasta to building the Temperance Flat or Sites Reservoirs—these incremental projects do add additional water supply.

Kris Polly: As a third-generation family farmer, you have likely seen the evolution in farming practices that has led to significant improvements in on-farm efficiency.

Today, farmers in California and throughout the United States produce more food and fiber with fewer inputs.

What are some of the factors that you think have led farmers to this impressive level of efficiency?

Congressman Costa: As a third-generation farmer, I have always believed that farmers are some of the best conservationists in our country. They have to make their livelihood sustainable by maintaining the productivity and 11

Congressman Costa speaking at a signing ceremony for a memorandum of agreement between the San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure Authority and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to complete the necessary studies to build Temperance Flat Dam.

health of their water and soil. They cannot survive without adopting innovative technologies.

Clearly, necessity is the mother of invention. At any point in time over the 20th century, as the challenges have come before California agriculture, we have seen farmers, ranchers, and dairymen sustaining their farms, ranches, and dairies to pass on to the next generation.

The water and irrigation district managers in California are always thinking outside the box to expand the supply of water in ways that 10, 20, 30 years ago would not have been possible. Our water managers and farmers have benefited from the partnerships that exist between our university system—Fresno State (of which I am an alumnus), Cal Poly, and the University of California schools—and agriculture. The University of California Extension Service has always been a cornerstone of the public-private partnership between the university and agriculture in the state. That partnership undoubtedly helps in developing technologies for continued efficient farming practices.

Kris Polly: Do you think that the public understands how efficient farms have become in the use of both land and water?

Congressman Costa: Sadly, no. We have a situation in which 2.5 percent of California’s workforce produces all of the state’s food and fiber. That is a wonderful reflection of how effective and efficient farmers, ranchers, and dairymen are. That means more than 95 percent of California’s population is not directly connected to the food that is put on America’s dinner table every night. I feel a majority of Americans really don’t think about it. They think their food comes from a grocery store. That connection sadly is missing.

Every week that I go home, I get asked by the farmers, ranchers, and dairymen in my district whether people

12

understand where their food comes from. I have to tell them that they don’t really understand. They take it for granted. They don’t think it is a problem that the drought has taken hundreds of thousands of acres of productive land out of production. The California public doesn’t understand that our groundwater continues to be overdrafted, and therefore depleted, and that it is not sustainable. They don’t understand that if they want us to continue to provide a balance for environmental purposes as the state grows, we have to fix this broken water system.

As farmers and Central Valley residents, we must do a better job of educating our urban constituency; we cannot expect them to get it on their own. I know that farmers in the Central Valley are working to put together coalitions to educate the public.

Kris Polly: It is estimated that by 2050, the demand for food around the world will grow by 70 percent. How important will it be to keep agricultural land, like that in California’s Central Valley, in production if we are to meet this growing demand for food?

Congressman Costa: That gets back to my previous point: Food doesn’t come from the grocery store. California produces half the nation’s fruits and vegetables; we are leading the country in citrus and dairy production; we produce over 80 percent of the world’s almonds; and we grow over 300 commodities.

Two years ago, the world population reached 7 billion, and by 2050, we will have another 2 billion people on the planet. People need to think about the sustainability of our world. California agriculture, which has always been on the cutting edge, will play a critical role in addressing that growth. Two issues will determine how successful California agriculture is in that effort: water and labor.

One other point, Kris. It is important that local, state, and federal governments support policies to fix this broken water system. A California water bill will ensure the longterm sustainability of our agricultural products. In my view, California has the wealth, the technical know-how, and the resources to implement solutions that will create a more reliable water supply for agriculture and our growing cities, and to meet the environmental challenges regarding fisheries and water quality.

With all of this in mind, if we cannot come together in California, I wonder what will happen for the rest of the world. We are a template. If we can’t solve the problems in California in the next 10 years, God help the rest of the world. We certainly have the ability to be successful if we can just put the politics past us and move forward with the solutions that work for everybody.

Irrigation Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

RIVERSCREEN

Built for shallow water pumping A rotating self-cleaning screen that dependably delivers good water from as little as 4 inches depth!

Riverscreen is the ideal solution for operations that depend upon surface water for irrigation purposes. They have also been used in other scenarios such as food processing, power plants wet yards, pipeline testing, and many more.

The Riverscreen was designed for shallow water pumping, to help prevent pumping sand and other debris. Our gravity fed Riverscreen is designed to work on floating or submersible pumps and wet wells. Low maintenance operation. Lightweight aluminum design. Standard on all Riverscreen’s is #8 304 stainless steel mesh. Other sizes available upon request.

Works great in livestock lagoons.

See it in action at www.riverscreen.com!

Contact us

with the specifics of your operation…

We’ll help you get more dependable water from your source.

1919 Kiowa Road | Clay Center, KS 67432 Office: 785-632-5452 | Fax: 785-632-6141 Sales: jessica@riverscreen.com Sales: joe@riverscreen.com Service: bob@riverscreen.com

The Opportunity to Create Lasting Water Solutions at the End of the 114th Congress:

A Conversation With Johnny Amaral of the Westlands Water District

W

hile water infrastructure and management has not been at the forefront of this election season, there is still important water supply legislation awaiting negotiation and, ultimately, a vote in Congress. Representative Valadao’s H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, and Senator Feinstein’s S. 2533, the California Long-Term Provisions for Water Supply and ShortTerm Provisions for Emergency Drought Relief Act, seek to address California’s critical water storage and delivery issues and bring relief, in the form of water, to the state’s rural and agricultural water delivery systems.

Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, spoke with Johnny Amaral, deputy general manager of external affairs at the Westlands Water District in California’s San Joaquin Valley, to get a sense of the water issues at hand for California farmers and what Congress needs to do to sustain the state’s agricultural production.

Kris Polly: What is the current state of irrigated agriculture in California?

Johnny Amaral: It really depends on where you are in the state and what watershed you are in. For those of us in the San Joaquin Valley, the bread basket of the world, we are in a precarious situation—and not because of a lack of rainfall.

From 2013 through 2015, it was dry; there was a sustained lack of snowpack, and there wasn’t much water in the system. But 2016 was a much different story. We had average or above average snowpack or rainfall. The Sierras were packed with snow and the reservoirs were filling up, so much so that water managers had to release water for flood control purposes. The system had lots of water. Today, Lake Shasta, which is a 4 million acre-foot reservoir, is holding 125 percent of its average storage level.

Yet today, [Westlands Water District] only has a 5 percent allocation of its water from the Bureau of Reclamation, and that water hasn’t even been delivered yet. It should only have taken a year for our area to recover from the previous three years of drought, but the federal government’s water policies have denied water to farmers, forcing them to use groundwater to keep their trees alive and produce 14

Irrigation Leader

fruits and vegetables.

The water system in this region was designed and built to maximize water supply in years like 2016. Capture and move it into storage—to harness the water when it is available for the times when it is not. But right now, the management of the system has failed to provide water for storage, and instead is responsible for billions of gallons of water flowing out into the ocean.

of this experiment, are no better off today than they were then.

The clock is ticking between the election and the beginning of the 115th Congress.

Kris Polly: What does California agriculture need Congress to do?

Johnny Amaral: Water in the West is political. There are those who believe in the status quo, which works for a world view that doesn’t support agricultural production in the San Joaquin Valley.

The San Joaquin is one of only five Mediterranean climates in the world. We can grow anything here. In fact, the west side of the San Joaquin valley is a perfect ag producing machine. The soil is ideal, and the weather is perfect—just add water.

Growing your own food and fiber is fundamental to both economic prosperity and national security. What we do here in the Central Valley is worth preserving and protecting. Congress talks about the need to develop a policy that makes progress on several important goals, but despite the rhetoric, it remains paralyzed.

Johnny Amaral: This is a problem that can be fixed without spending a nickel. It takes political will to fix the problem. Congress needs to pass legislation that allows this system to operate with flexibility to deliver water for California farmers while protecting fish and wildlife. This water supply and delivery system was built to withstand five years of consecutive drought, but it is failing farmers, the environment, and communities throughout the state.

As you know, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed numerous bills since 2010 to address California’s water management issues. The original 2010 legislation was a very comprehensive solution to the region’s water issues. In more recent years, proposed legislation has emphasized more stop-gap measures rather than big solutions. Something is better than nothing, but the question is, will it get over the line this year?

We know the result of nothing happening. The management of California’s water supply in 2016 demonstrates what the people can expect if legislation doesn’t pass. If Congress doesn’t send a signal to the relevant agencies managing water that it expects a different result, we’ll end up with the same result—a 5 percent allocation on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, more acres fallowed, and a reduction in agricultural production, all in the name of enhancing fisheries, which, after decades

Kris Polly: Given the extended period of drought experienced by California, why hasn’t Congress been able to act?

Kris Polly: What is your message to irrigation districts outside California? Why should they be paying attention?

Johnny Amaral: My message to other irrigation districts and other resource industries is this: Don’t think this can’t happen to you. What is happening in central California is a direct result of public policy put into place 25 years ago.

That policy, along with the resulting laws and regulations, has completely cut this region off from a resilient water supply and threatened the ability of our farmers and laborers to grow the wide variety of produce that helps to feed this country.

A vast field of watermelons in Westlands Water District.

Irrigation Leader

15

District Focus

Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District

By Mark Clark

T

he Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (MVIDD) has been in existence for over 50 years. It has been transformed from an almost entirely agrarian area to one with a substantial municipal and industrial component. Although the agricultural component has decreased over the years, its importance has not.

MVIDD is a special taxing district created under title 48 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The district was formed on December 23, 1963, under Mohave County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 248.

It encompasses 54,541 acres of land in northwestern Arizona. The district lies in the floodplain of the Colorado River. It is bordered by Bullhead City, Arizona, to the north; the city of Needles, California, to the south; and the Colorado River to the west.

We have just over 7,000 acres of irrigable farmland currently in production, and 82 percent of the district’s water is used for agriculture.

We are seeing urbanization in our district, mostly on the far north end. The 32,000 people living in the district are served by five regulated water utility companies located within the district’s boundaries.

We deliver raw water to the utilities, and they in turn deliver it to their end users.

Unique Well Ownership

The water within the district comes from wells with one exception: the pumping station on the river at the south end of the district. The water within the district is pumped primarily from wells that pump the subflow of the Colorado River. Unlike most irrigation districts, the wells are owned by the individual farmers, the amenity users, and the utility companies, not the district.

To ensure accurate accounting for water use, MVIDD flow tests all the agricultural wells on an annual basis to see what the flow rates are, and then we inspect all the ditches that are owned by the individual farmers who are also responsible for the operation and maintenance of that infrastructure. Letting the farmers, the amenity users, and the utility companies own and operate the actual infrastructure keeps our costs down and decreases the operation and maintenance costs that the district passes on to the end user. We do not have

16

to send out maintenance and repair teams to fix the wells or ditches, so we do not have to pass that cost on to the farmers. They just pay our fees for oversight by the district.

District Challenges

One of our biggest challenges is that the district has resolutions and policies in place that require individuals to get approval before drilling a well.

However, many individuals do not do that, and the only way we can prevent them from drilling is through lawsuits. At this point, we have 1,547 of those individual exempt wells, and that adds up to a lot of water.

Because we are looking at potential shortages being declared on the Colorado River in the future, we have to really manage our water resources very carefully.

Irrigation Leader

The temperature here is hotter than the Arizona average and the national average, and precipitation is lower than the Arizona average and the national average. Our wind is higher than average. It is very windy, very hot, and very dry. These factors have forced us to narrow down the irrigation methods that we use. Flood irrigation is more efficient than sprinkler irrigation for us because of the strength and variability of winds in this area. The high total dissolved solids in the water makes drip irrigation impractical without additional treatment like sulfuric acid injection, which adds to the cost. Thus, we have required all ditches within the district to be lined, we do minimum or no till, we have jack gates installed, and we reduced the field sizes for irrigation.

We are 100 percent dependent on Colorado River water, which means our allocation has to be able to cover all the individual, company, amenity, industrial, and agricultural users. So, if we do not have any control over someone putting in a well in the district and using water, it causes us problems.

We have been working with our county supervisors to address this issue and will be coordinating with them to draft legislation that will allow the Arizona Department of Water Resources to refuse to issue a drill card for a well.

Right now, the department does not have the authority to refuse to issue a drill card, even for a legitimate reason.

The legislation we envision would allow the department to refuse to issue a drill card under certain circumstances and would allow local agencies and partners like us to be part of that approval process. We want to work with these individuals and expand in this area, but we need to know who is drilling and how much water they need.

Weather and Climate Challenges

The southern part of the district has a lower elevation than the rest of the district, so there is only about 17–22 feet to water in much of that area. We do not have to go far for water because we are on the flood plain of the Colorado River. Up on the mesa in the northern part of the district, it can be over 100 feet to water in some areas.

Irrigation Leader

Monitoring and Conservation of Water

We use a combination of approaches to monitor and measure water usage. The regulated utility companies are required by law to have meters on their wells, and they report their well use to us on a monthly basis. Our amenity users are also required to have meters on their wells and report their usage to us monthly.

The agricultural users are flow tested every year so we can track how much water is moving through those wells, and then let the farmers know the results. There are hour meters on the farmers’ wells; and they report to us what their hour usage is, and we can then calculate how much they used for that month. Combined with annual flow testing, we are able to more accurately calculate how much water has been used at each well. We have been very pleased with the results so far.

We’re seeing more residential and industrial growth in the district, so we have to be even more careful going forward. There is a least a 50 percent chance of a water shortage being declared in 2018, so we are balancing to make sure we have enough water for everyone without discouraging new development.

Mark Clark is the general manager of the Mohave Irrigation and Drainage District. You can reach Mr. Clark at mclark@mvidd.net.

17

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

MAXIMUM IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY

STARTS WITH YOUR PUMP AND WATERTRONICS Watertronics® is a leader in offering integrated pump systems solutions customized to your needs. Their pump stations and controls maintain consistent, surge-free water delivery for optimum pressure regulation thus reducing your energy costs and ensuring your irrigation system will work efficiently.

For more details, contact your local Watertronics dealer or visit www.watertronics.com.

WATERTRONICS, A LINDSAY COMPANY, PROVIDES: •

An integrated pump system engineered to save energy, water and labor

•

Complete pivot, pump and irrigation expertise

•

Systems delivered as a factory assembled and tested unit for fast installation

•

Collaboration with engineering firms

•

24-hour certified service and support

•

Full inventory of parts for minimal downtime

© 2015 Lindsay. All rights reserved. Watertronics is a registered trademark of the Lindsay Corporation.

Arizona Irrigation District Tort Liability

Water Law

By Russell R. Rea

Terrible Truck Crash Into Canal

Early in the morning on May 19, 2013, 19-year-old Alberto Lopez crashed a single-cab pickup truck into the Roosevelt Water Conservation District’s (RWCD)1 Main Canal.2 Mr. Lopez crashed after driving the truck through the end of a town roadway and across a canal road. The truck slammed into the top of the concrete liner on the far side of the canal, flipped up, turned around, and landed on a concrete and metal radial gate structure. The truck then caught fire.

Incredibly, Mr. Lopez walked away from the wreckage and escaped serious physical injury. Three passengers riding with Mr. Lopez in the truck’s cab were not so fortunate. Each suffered broken bones and lacerations. Joseph Reyes, 17 years old, suffered catastrophic injury from a spinal fracture that resulted in paralysis to his lower body.

Criminal Charges

Prior to the crash, Mr. Lopez and the truck passengers had been at an end-of-the-school-year party.

Tests reported that Mr. Lopez’s blood alcohol level was 0.198, more than twice Arizona’s 0.08 limit for a person of legal drinking age. Later, Mr. Lopez was convicted through a plea agreement of felony criminal aggravated assault for having injured the passengers. Mr. Lopez presently is serving a lengthy prison sentence.

Civil Litigation Claims

Seven months after the crash, personal injury lawyers for Mr. Reyes filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, civil litigation claims against the town, RWCD, and others. Mr. Reyes alleged that RWCD owed a duty to protect Mr. Reyes from injury from the canal. Mr. Reyes asserted that RWCD, in failing to satisfy this duty, caused Mr. Reyes’ injuries and, as a consequence, owed monetary damages.

Salladay Doctrine

For more than 100 years, Arizona common law has provided irrigation districts in certain circumstances with immunity from tort liability. The immunity is based on the 1909 decision by the Supreme Court for the Territory of Arizona in Salladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co.3 and is known as the Salladay doctrine.

In Salladay, a young child fell into an elevated mining flume that discharged fast-flowing water over a 15-foot fall and onto rocks. The child died from injuries suffered after going over the fall. The child’s parents 20

brought a lawsuit against the flume owner. The issue was whether the flume was an attractive nuisance that required the owner to take steps to safeguard the flume.

The general rule was then, as it is now, that a property owner does not owe a duty to a trespasser, except to not willfully or intentionally cause injury.4 The attractive nuisance doctrine has been an exception to this rule. Under this exception, a property owner may be liable for failure to reasonably secure property or an improvement for the protection of children. The duty is imposed because a child is unable both to understand the danger of the attraction and to exercise appropriate judgment with respect to trespass.

The Supreme Court decided in Salladay, however, that as a matter of law and public policy, the attractive nuisance doctrine should not be applied to the flume.5 The court reasoned that the flume and similar structures, including open irrigation ditches, were exceedingly prevalent in the area due to the need for water to be delivered to otherwise dry lands, that it was impossible to render these delivery structures safe, and that the structures were indispensable to the maintenance of life and prosperity in the community.6 In the years since the decision, Arizona courts have defined Salladay as shielding irrigation canal owners from tort liability arising from contact with the canals and related essential irrigation system infrastructure.

The courts have reasoned that (1) a city-owned irrigation box known to a resident who was injured by the box could not support a claim of negligence;7 (2) a canal owner could not be liable for wrongful death for a drowning in a pond at the end of a canal;8 (3) a weir box located near a power pole where an injury to a child occurred could not form a basis for tort liability;9 (4) electrical power facilities for a pump at a weir box adjacent to a canal could not be grounds for a claim against the canal and pump owner;10 and (5) there was no liability following a drowning of a child who had Irrigation Leader

been ejected from a car into an irrigation ditch and swept down the ditch into a culvert.11

Doctrine Not Absolute

The Salladay doctrine has been described as providing “almost complete immunity” to an operator of an irrigation canal or related works.12 As this phrase suggests, however, the doctrine has not been absolute.

In one instance, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to follow the doctrine. In Harris v. Buckeye Irr. Co., a child crossing a two-foot-wide bridge fell into a canal and drowned.13 An irrigation company had constructed and used the bridge, knew that there had been a previous drowning and a near-drowning at the bridge location, and had refused to improve the safety of the bridge on the basis that those using the bridge were trespassing. The court took offense to the irrigation company’s statements made during discovery and cited to extensive deposition testimony in the decision.

The court, on the basis of what amounted to a finding that the company had acted in bad faith, declined to use the Salladay doctrine to provide immunity from a wrongful death claim. The court reasoned that on the facts of that case public policy did not protect a canal owner who showed a “callous” disregard for public safety.14 Even when the doctrine has been applied, that decision is not always unanimous. In Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Superior Court, which involved an underground culvert connected to a canal, a dissenting opinion urged that the Salladay doctrine should not apply because the culvert at issue in that case represented a hidden and manufactured danger that policy did not protect.15 Perhaps of larger concern than disregard for the doctrine is a long-standing discussion in the cases about whether the doctrine should continue. The discussion has been that due to property uses moving away from agriculture the circumstances under which Salladay was issued have changed so as to render the doctrine unmanageable. As far back as 1969, the Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged that “with the developing concentration of population and the increase of traffic along our public highways, a counterveiling public policy has developed which would require that the immunity granted in Salladay be tempered.”16 The courts engaging this these discussions, however, have been unwilling to overturn Salladay17 or under legal precedent principles have acknowledged that they lack the power to do so.18

Doctrine’s Present State

Despite these reservations, two of the most recent cases discussing the Salladay doctrine have confirmed that the doctrine continues to protect canal operators.

In Bledsoe v. Goodfarb, a bicyclist riding on a canal road hit and was injured by a cable strung across the road.19 The Arizona Supreme Court, in assessing whether to apply the doctrine, examined the original reasons for the Salladay Irrigation Leader

decision. The court concluded that the policy underlying the doctrine did not apply to the cable gate and canal road.20 The court, in its assessment, confirmed the test for the application of the Salladay doctrine: (1) can the facility under scrutiny be made safe, (2) is applying the doctrine to the facility essential to the continued delivery of irrigation water, and (3) is the danger of the facility so open and obvious as to exempt the owner from liability?21 Two years later, in Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v.

Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals reaffirmed the doctrine’s viability.22 That case involved a child drowning in an underground culvert connected to a canal. Citing Bledsoe, the court expressed that the Salladay doctrine remained “as viable today as it was in 1906,” at least with respect to a child trespass, and that the doctrine continued to immunize the canal owner in that case from the claims of all those who are injured by the canal itself or by the equipment used as an essential component of the canal system.23

Case Dismissal

Returning to the Reyes litigation, in March 2014 RWCD moved to dismiss Mr. Reyes’ complaint for failure to state a viable claim for relief. RWCD argued that Mr. Reyes’ claim was that the canal structure had caused injury and, being based on the mere existence of an open canal, under the Salladay doctrine could not stand. Mr. Reyes in response argued that the Salladay doctrine did not apply because the crash was not an attractive nuisance situation, the danger of the canal was not open and obvious, and the harm to Mr. Reyes was not from the canal itself but rather RWCD’s alleged failure to barricade and warn about the canal. The trial court following oral argument granted RWCD’s motion. The court found that based on the holdings of Salladay and other cases involving the doctrine that Mr. Reyes’ allegations failed to state a claim for relief.

Aftermath—Continued Effects and Uncertainties The ruling ended Mr. Reyes’ trial court claims against RWCD in RWCD’s favor. The litigation at the time of this writing, however, continues. A trial to resolve Mr. Reyes’ claim against the town presently is scheduled to commence in December 2016.

It is unknown whether following the conclusion of the trial court case Mr. Reyes will appeal the trial court’s decision to grant RWCD’s motion to dismiss. RWCD anticipates that given the present state of the Salladay doctrine and the record on appeal that Mr. Reyes is not likely to prevail on appeal. Time, however, will tell.

In the meantime, incidents like the May 2013 crash remain a concern for RWCD. RWCD covers about 40,000 acres within the Phoenix suburbs of Mesa, Gilbert, and Chandler. Residential, commercial, and municipal land use within RWCD’s boundaries continue to expand with the tremendous growth in Maricopa County. From 1980 to 2015, Gilbert alone saw its population increase over

21

4,200 percent (from 5,717 to 242,955 residents).24 The changes related to this staggering growth rate only increase the opportunities for contact with RWCD’s irrigation system canals and other facilities.

As a result of this development, there may come a time when existing support for the Salladay doctrine evaporates and immunity for irrigation districts like RWCD no longer exists. Should that happen, potentially tragic and catastrophic events may expose RWCD and like entities to significant financial risk and loss. The loss of protection may force action that requires additional expenditure of limited capital that would be better reserved for core activities such as facility maintenance and operation. These and other risks ultimately may result in significant changes to RWCD’s operations and, in theory, the possible end to RWCD’s water delivery activities. The local and larger community that RWCD has served over the years then may see a diminishment in the level of life and prosperity enjoyed in earlier times. But for now, the Salladay doctrine continues to protect the continuing delivery of essential irrigation water to Arizona’s arid lands.

Roosevelt Water Conservation District is a nearly 100-year-old irrigation and water conservation district organized and operated under Arizona’s Irrigation District Act, A.R.S. §§ 48-2901 through 48-3256.

2. The facts summarized in this article are a matter of public record found in the civil litigation action filed in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Reyes et al v. Town of Gilbert et al., CV2013-16971, and investigative reports of the Town of Gilbert Police Department.

3. 12 Ariz. 124, 100 P. 441 (1909).

4. E.g., Spur Feeding Co. v. Fernandez, 106 Ariz. 143, 145-46, 472 P.2d 12, 14-15 (1970).

5. Salladay, 12 Ariz. at 129-30, 100 P. at 442.

6. Id. 7. City of Glendale v. Sutter, 54 Ariz. 326, 329-330, 95 P.2d 569, 570-71 (1939).

8. Dombrowski v. Maricopa County Mun. Water Conserv. Dist., 108 Ariz 275, 276-77, 496 P.2d 136,137-38 (1972).

9. Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, 73 Ariz. 122, 238 P.2d 945 (1951).

10. Elkins v. Roosevelt Water Conserv. Dist., 22 Ariz.App. 130, 524 P.2d 964 (App. 1974).

11. Hersey v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, 10 Ariz.App. 321, 458 P.2d 525 (App. 1969).

12. Dombrowski, 108 Ariz. at 276, 436 P2d at 137.

13. 118 Ariz. 498, 502, 578 P.2d 177, 181 (App 1978).

14. Id. 15. 178 Ariz. 70, 88-84, 870 P.2d 1166, 1176-80 (App. 1993).

16. Hersey, at 327, 458 P.2d at 531.

17. Dombrowski, at 277, 496 P.2d at 138.

18. Rodriquez, at 224, 506 P.2d at 264.

19. 170 Ari. 256, 823 P.2d 1264 (1991).

Russell Rea is general counsel for the 20. Id., at 264-65, 823 P.2d at 1273-74.

21. Id. Roosevelt Water Conservation District.

22. 178 Ariz. 70, 870 P.2d 1166 (App. 1993).

You can reach Mr. Rea at r.rea@rwcd.net.

23. Id., at 76, 870 P.2d at 1172.

24. https://www.gilbertaz.gov/about-us.

16_1069 Irrigation_OCT Mod: August 19, 2016 10:20 AM Print: 09/06/16 3:32:23 PM page 1 v7

π SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

HUGE SELECTION OF DRUMS AND PAILS ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

COMPLETE CATALOG

1-800-295-5510

1.

ADVERTISEMENT

“IWS provided a debris management system for our project that met our expectations for equipment performance. They have been very responsive when handling issues during commissioning and are continuing to provide great service during the warranty period.”

- Alan W. Hansten P.E Manager North Side Energy Canal Co., Ltd. CONTACT RICH GARGAN (661) 979-1815 iwsrich@sbcglobal.net

CHRIS GARGAN (661) 979-7206 iwschris@sbcglobal.net

JOEL IRVING (310) 614-4681 iwsjoel@sbcglobal.net

International Water Screens 11007 Ainswick Dr. Bakersfield CA 93311 w: internationalwaterscreens.com Phone: (661)-746-7959

Water Law

Does Anyone Give A Dam About Hydropower?

By Robert S. Lynch

H

ave you ever worked on something for over 30 years and kept telling yourself, “This will work out. Logic and science will prevail!” Have you? I have. Starting in 1985, I began working with Reclamation and water users and power users on Glen Canyon Dam power operations and their downstream impacts: first, up to the 1997 Operating Criteria, which science later showed to be based on false assumptions; then, on the adaptive management efforts that have spawned the final Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) environmental impact statement (EIS).

Did objective science prevail? No! Did logic prevail?

Not hardly! In the process, Reclamation has lost credibility, at least in my eyes, and has been beaten black and blue by a Park Service cohort that couldn’t stumble over objectivity.

The Current Process Was Warped From the Beginning

The 1996 record of decision on the Glen Canyon Dam Operating Criteria EIS, in addition to establishing the current criteria, established an adaptive management process which, in turn, fostered the creation of an Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) to provide advice to the secretary of the interior on how that process would be conducted.

Fast forward to 2010 and AMWG, in anticipation of the LTEMP EIS, produced a document labeled Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) in advance of scoping the EIS. In other words, AMWG’s DFCs signaled that the scope of the EIS had been predetermined before the process could accept public comment. And we objected to this unacceptable effect in 2011.

Then, in 2012, we filed scoping comments, again expressing concern that the scoping effort was not trending toward win-win solutions for all resources, including hydropower, even though the EIS was supposed to require it to examine in detail all “reasonable alternatives.” We even provided information on a downstream mitigation program for sediment conservation that would be more predictable in result

24

than the so-called high flow experiments (HFEs) then being conducted and contemplated in the future.

So far, the HFEs have produced only temporary (6–8 months) sediment additions to camping beaches and sandbars, the resource that was to become the central focus of the EIS.

No Surprises

I have to say, when the draft EIS was released last January, we were not surprised that hydropower enhancing alternatives were not included. Remember that this is a proposed experiment and management plan for the next 20 years! And they couldn’t even include experiments that might benefit hydropower?

Really? My incredulity stems from several starting points.

First, the 1996 record of decision deciding the 1997 Glen Canyon Dam Operating Criteria defined five criteria important to hydropower: maximum Irrigation Leader

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation commemorated the 50th anniversary of power generation at Glen Canyon Dam in September 2014. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

water release, minimum release, upramping (increasing releases), downramping (lowering releases), and daily change. None of these are changing, yet the upramping limit (4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) per hour) was later nearly doubled from its original level (2,500 cfs/hour) when no one could measure any downstream impacts from upramping. The higher level, as a practical matter, renders this criterion useless because of the limits on daily change (higher monthly water release—800,000 acre feet = 8,000 cfs daily change; lower monthly releases—600,000 acre feet = 6,000 cfs daily change).

Simple math shows the virtual impossibility of using a 4,000 cfs/hour daily change.

Second, they steadfastly refused to even consider experiments that would test the impacts of increasing the daily change (load following) limits. Thus, for the next 20 years, they will use criteria from 1997 without so much as testing whether the assumptions on which these criteria were based are still valid, let alone what the last Irrigation Leader

nearly 20 years of scientific study has produced with regard to them. Logic alone would tell an objective person that reexamination of those criteria should have been the first order of business of adaptive management, but if not then, clearly now in this new two-decade program. Logic alone would tell an objective person that considering infrequent dredging to enhance camping beaches and sandbars, as Reclamation does below Hoover Dam, as a mitigation tool to allow better hydropower production at the dam, would be an important experiment to undertake.

Instead, after the record of decision, they will continue to leave 600–800 megawatts of the dam’s generating capacity unused, unnecessarily, while the agencies continue to try to get the HFEs to recreate the hydrologic instability that dams are supposed to stop. This is more like silliness than science. Clean renewable hydropower will have to be replaced by carbon-based generation spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide—the very same carbon dioxide emissions these scientists abhor. After all, we have to keep the lights on. It doesn’t take an Aliso Canyon gas storage crisis to understand that.

The sad thing is that the unused capacity at the dam is 10 times the capacity Reclamation says it could feasibly install at some of its nonpower dams. At a time when everyone is reaching out to acquire new renewable electricity, this existing highly valuable hydropower plant isn’t allowed to do its job. It is being blamed for impacts it doesn’t cause. Not only that, it is being made a scapegoat for future experiments the agencies want to conduct in the name of saving a canyon that doesn’t need saving, at least from the puny human species that continues to play with it.

Robert Lynch is an attorney in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona. Over his distinguished career, Mr. Lynch has consulted and litigated on federal and state power, water, environmental and public land issues as well as federal and state legislation and regulations. The views expressed in this article are his own and not the views of Irrigation Leader or Water Strategies LLC. You can reach Mr. Lynch at rslynch@rslynchaty.com.

25

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Â? Â? Â?

Westlands Growers Help Grow our Communities Paul Betancourt ���������������������������������������������������� crops to the Central Valley’s agricultural economy, he also donates his time to the local community. His civic interests include service on several boards – the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, �������������������������������������������������� time member of the Kerman Rotary Board and the Fresno County Farm Bureau Board, where he served as President from 2000 to 2002.

Growing more than Supporting

dependent on Westlands’ agricultural economy Generating

Producing  , including tomatoes, onions, melons, grapes and nuts Serving California, the United States and more than

� �� �

Growing Green(s) All Year Round

Irrigated Crops

M

ike Pasquinelli’s family has been growing produce in Arizona for three generations, dating all the way back to the late 1940s.

His great-uncle followed the picking seasons south from San Jose down to Yuma, where he ended up settling. Mr. Pasquinelli started working for Nature Fresh Farms, LLC, nine years ago, steadily growing their operations to cover 9,000 acres across multiple irrigation districts in California and Arizona.

Nature Fresh grows year round. While baby mixed greens and baby spinach account for 70 percent of the operation, NatureFresh also grows broccoli and celery.

In the summer months, when it is too hot for the produce to grow, Mr. Pasquinelli grows wheat, Sudan grass, and cantaloupes. With each crop, Mr. Pasquinelli takes great care to ensure that safe and high-quality produce reaches the kitchen table.

From Seed to Shipment

Bringing greens to your table is a well-honed process. The heavy tillage work begins in the summer.

Mr. Pasquinelli explains, “In June and early July, we do a deep rip of the soil so we get good drainage. Then, typically in July, we’ll water fallow grounds to get wheat germinated, build up the soil profile, and leech any salts.” In September, they prepare the beds for the baby greens by lifting up the soil and preirrigating it with sprinklers.

Depending on the crop, Nature Fresh begins seeding from September to early October, and on

early crops like the baby greens, the time from seed germination to crop harvest is about 30 days. “When we start seeding, we get busy. We use overhead sprinkler irrigation with movable lateral lines. Typically, we have four to five waterings after germination, depending on weather and everything. As the crop is growing, we’ll spike our furrows to get water penetration to leach salts; we don’t like a lot of polluted water.”

All Nature Fresh’s greens are mechanically harvested. Machines with band saws harvest through the beds and empty the produce into totes or bins, depending on shipping requirements. Machine operators run the mechanical harvesters while a team of five people walking in front of the machines look for foreign materials.

Workers place the totes on rolling conveyors and then stack them on pallets. The containers come in behind the workers packing them, loop around, get filled, and return full to the trailer.

Throughout the irrigation season, Nature Fresh takes at least five water samples for generic E. coli.

Just prior to harvest, product samples are taken for E. coli, salmonella, and other pathogens. All these efforts comply with the standards set under the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, which is required by our shippers.

From there, the produce goes to a cooling facility, where it is readied for processing. The produce is washed, then mixed and bagged according to shipper

Growing greens in southern Arizona (left to right): beds before planting, 8 days after germination water, 25 days after germination just before harvest.

28

Irrigation Leader

or consumer requirements. Shippers will ship raw product to distribution centers or processing facilities throughout the country.

Mr. Pasquinelli is keenly aware of time. “We are dealing with perishable commodities, so as soon as we cut to harvest, the clock starts ticking on shelf life.” The time between harvest and placement in the grocery store is typically five to seven days.

Challenges to Growing Healthy Greens

According to Mr. Pasquinelli, weather is the biggest factor involved with growing healthy greens. “We’re lucky that we’re temperate and able to grow during the winter months, but the challenge is that if we don’t follow a typical weather pattern, our commodities can come off early and create a glut in the markets with less demand.

If it’s too cold, the product can come in short or late, effecting supply.”

With fickle weather comes uncertainty at harvest time.

“With head lettuce and other commodities, one day of planting is good for three days of harvest. So, if we get a heavy rain event, and we can’t plant for four days, we miss almost two weeks of harvest.” On the opposite end, a lack of water has other detrimental effects. All Nature Fresh’s baby greens receive overhead sprinkler water, and the company fertigates through that system. If there is no water in the system, or there is sufficient rain to water the crops, the produce will not have enough fertilizer to sustain growth.

Another issue is that greens are perishable. During winter harvest, there may be crystal clear skies in the desert Southwest, but the main markets for greens on the East

Irrigation Leader

Coast or the Midwest may have blizzards or snowstorms.

As Mr. Pasquinelli notes, “Not a lot of people eat fresh, crisp salad when its 30 degrees below zero outside.”

Farming Smart

Because of the microclimates and variability of weather in southwestern Arizona, Mr. Pasquinelli has diversified geographically. He has fields within the Yuma County Water Users Association, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District, and Imperial Irrigation District (California) boundaries. For Mr. Pasquinelli, “When there’s a curveball thrown, we scramble, but the nice thing is that we have a large footprint to grow in. We have plots that stretch almost 90 miles from east to west. The different microclimates and soil types give us some versatility and allow us to grow successfully in one area if another area is struggling.”

Pride and Stewardship

In this election season, Mr. Pasquinelli believes that the public needs to understand more about what America’s produce growers are actually doing. “Farmers are very conscientious of food safety, and we take a lot of pride in the products that we’re growing, from water applications to soil quality to where we put fertilizer. Our families are consumers of the products that we grow.”

“We don’t like using a lot of chemicals, pesticides, or fungicides on our products. Yet, we have a high demand put on us for almost perfect or flawless product, so we have to create a fine balance between having too much insect damage on a head of lettuce and not enough.”

29

International

Irrigation Leader International Exchange Program in Idaho

T

his year, Irrigation Leader magazine launched its International Exchange Program. The exchange program concept was conceived during our Irrigation Education Tour to Australia in February in a conversation with Mr. Boe Clausen, director with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID). In his twenties, Boe had participated in an agriculture exchange program and thought it had been a great experience. Our other tour participants agreed that such an exchange program for irrigation district employees would be a beneficial, providing participants an opportunity to share information and to develop professionally. Rubicon Water was supportive of the idea as well and helped with the Australian irrigation district connections.

John Lind, general manager of Burley Irrigation District in Idaho, and Craig Simpson, general manager of ECBID, both participants in the Irrigation Education Tour to Australia, developed agreements with their respective Australian counterparts, Murray Irrigation Limited and Coleambally Irrigation Cooperative Limited.

Burley Irrigation District and Murray Irrigation Limited were the first participants in the program.

Emily Small, a customer account officer with Murray Irrigation, spent four and a half weeks this past August and September living and working alongside Burley employees. Irrigation Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly spoke to Mrs. Small about the experience.

Kris Polly: Tell us about how you came to the United States.

Emily Small: About a month before the exchange started, Murray Irrigation put out an email to all staff requesting an expression of interest to go on an exchange over to America and see what Burley has done in their area. We all put an expression of interest in and they chose five [candidates], and I was the lucky candidate who got picked. So, it’s been wonderful.

Kris Polly: That is great. What is your job at Murray Irrigation?

Emily Small: I am a customer account officer at Murray Irrigation. So, at the moment, I go around to all the farmers and talk to them about the new outlets that we are going to be installing. We work with the farmers to try and get the best outlet installed for their on-farm needs. I then try to address any questions or help with issues they have.

Kris Polly: Did you grow up on a farm in Australia?

Emily Small: No, I grew up in a country town called Wagga Wagga. I moved to Ballarat and worked

30

Left to right: John Lind, general manager of Burley Irrigation District; Emily Small, customer account officer at Murray Irrigation; and Dean Edgar, chairman of the Burley Irrigation District board of directors.

as embryologist for four years where I met my husband, who is a farmer. We then moved to Deniliquin a couple years ago to work on the family farm. That’s kind of what got me into the irrigation and agriculture.

Kris Polly: What are some of the things you did at Burley?

Emily Small: The first day, they took me up to Lake Walcott and showed me the newly constructed Minidoka Spillway and Burley’s diversion gates where Burley’s water supply comes into their system. They basically showed me the whole system; I got a broad snapshot of the area and how they operate. We drove from one end of the district to the other looking at check structures and the three pump stations that lift Burley’s entire water supply to its patrons. From there, I spent multiple days with many Burley employees to see how they operate the district pumps, what the ditch riders do, and what the water master does. I saw every part of the business.

Then, I took a tour with the Bureau of Reclamation.

We started off at Island Park [Dam and Reservoir], had a few great talks up there, and made our way down to A & B Irrigation not far from Burley. We went to American Falls and Henry’s Fork. We went to a committee meeting and a coalition meeting; I presented at the irrigation managers meeting. I have been doing as much as I can.

Kris Polly: What was the presentation you did for the managers?

Emily Small: Basically, I provided a snapshot of what [Murray] Irrigation Area is, how it operates, and how different we are in regards to regulation and irrigation, and how water is a tradable commodity in Australia. I was just trying to give them a general overview of our area and Murray Irrigation, and the type of new outlets that we are installing.

Irrigation Leader

Kris Polly: What have been some of the highlights for you?

Emily Small: Definitely the Reclamation tour, which was fantastic. It was a great highlight for me to actually be part of the community. I really got the feel of what it was like to live in [rural] America. Also, I was also impressed with the quality of the workmanship and how proud the Burley employees are of their work and operations—they turned their pump house into a functioning museum!

Visiting a sugar factory was a highlight. I had never seen sugar beets before, and I was lucky enough to get a tour. I got to see what sugar beets are, how they get harvested, and how they get processed. It was great.

Also, I got to see a football game, which I have never seen before. It was a high school football game, which was fantastic. It was a big deal. I didn’t think it would be like what I have seen in the movies, but it was. I couldn’t get over it. I was very impressed.

Kris Polly: What were your accommodations like in Burley?

Emily Small: I was living with a retired Burley employee who used to work in the pump stations. I stayed in their downstairs area [basement], which was lovely.

Kris Polly: It sounds like you had a great experience. What are some of the things you did on the weekends?

Emily Small: I have been very busy on the weekends. The first weekend, I went up to Sun Valley for a tour of Alturas Lake. Then on a Sunday, John [Lind] took me out to the City of Rocks [National Reserve] and Lake Cleveland. It was beautiful. The weekend after, I went down to Salt Lake City and Park City, which was just fantastic and really interesting.

The following weekend, I went back to Sun Valley to do some hiking and looking around. Then last weekend, I went to Jackson, Wyoming, and toured Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park.

Kris Polly: Did you have a vehicle? If so, how did you get along driving on the right side of the road?

food. [In Idaho,] Junk food is a lot cheaper than healthy food.

In Australia, a can of pop is about $4.80, while over here it’s about 50 cents. I also noticed that everybody is very friendly, and everyone went out of their way to make me feel welcome and include me in things. Another cultural point was how much pride everyone takes in their work.

Kris Polly: What were some of the differences you observed in Burley’s irrigation system compared to Murray’s?

Emily Small: Burley uses pumps to lift all the water; we use gravity. In terms of farming, we do a lot of flood irrigation in our area, and the majority of farmers here [in the United States] are all spray irrigation. Another significant difference in Australia is the disassociation of water and land. Here in Idaho, farmers buy the land and have the same amount of water delivered to them every year. In Australia, water is a tradable commodity, and you buy land without water attached to it.

Kris Polly: What about crops?

Emily Small: There are no sugar beets in Australia. While we have done a few trials, it is the only populated continent in the world that doesn’t grow sugar beets. We basically have everything else in common. There is wheat, barley, some potatoes, and a lot of alfalfa in the Murray area.

Kris Polly: As a result of this experience, what will you be doing for Murray Irrigation when you go back?

Emily Small: I will do a couple different presentations for Murray’s board, its senior management, and what we call landholder associations. I will show what I did here, describe the tour, and talk about what I have learned.

Kris Polly: Do you think that your district will send additional Australians to the United States?

Emily Small: I hope so; I got a huge benefit out of the experience and learned a lot. I can’t recommend it enough.

Emily Small: [The district] was very kind and gave me a vehicle to drive. It helped me get around and let me see a lot of stuff.

I was the crazy lady, talking to myself at stop signs and making sure that I was on the right side of the road. I have gotten used to it now. I did have a lapse of judgment one time when I was crossing the road; I forgot to look the right way and stepped out in front of a car, but I survived.

Kris Polly: What are some of your observations about American culture?

Emily Small: Religion here is very strong, a lot more so than where I am from. It has been really interesting to learn about the different religions, and how strong the religious community is in this area particularly. Another difference is Irrigation Leader

31

John Lind’s experience on this year's Irrigation Education Tour to Australia sparked his interest in the international exchange.

Kris Polly spoke to Mr. Lind about his district’s expectations and experience hosting Mrs. Small.

Kris Polly: Emily gave us an overview of how she was selected for the program and the kind of things she did at Burley.

John, can you tell us how you prepared for her arrival?

John Lind: We had a memorandum of understanding with Murray Irrigation in which we agreed that while Murray would continue to cover her salary and benefits while she was here, we would take care of her housing and give her as full an experience as possible. One of our retired employees and his wife had a basement apartment, and they agreed to allow her to stay with them for the duration of the exchange. We also provided her with a vehicle.

Kris Polly: How did you initially pitch the idea to your board of directors?

John Lind: I first pitched the idea to my board by giving them a report on my experience when I traveled to Australia [on the Irrigation Leader tour]. I talked about the challenges Australia faced with its millennium drought, and how irrigation districts in the country responded to it. The board was particularly interested in how we could learn about the integration of new technology.

Kris Polly: What were your expectations for the exchange program?

John Lind: Murray Irrigation asked me what type of employee we wanted. I told them that during my Australia tour, I was thoroughly impressed by the application of technology in the district, which was something I really wanted for Burley. So I told them that it would be helpful if they had someone with that background, and they did. Emily was very well qualified and very well versed in water. She was a great selection.

Kris Polly: What did you plan for her?

John Lind: I planned to have her go with me on every meeting that involved water policy. We had scheduled meetings with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and with irrigation districts. We also had her go out with all of my managers and their crews. I set a rough schedule for her, and we then adjusted as we went along. Other than weekends, she didn’t have much downtime.

I wanted to give her an in-depth view of our operations, how we currently use technology, why we operate the way we do, and have her provide any recommendations for how we could implement changes or integrate new technology.

Kris Polly: What were her recommendations?

John Lind: Her recommendations ended up being more operational in nature than technical, which was interesting. We had some great conversations along the way about how we adjust the flow of water in our system, and how we measure water. In one part of our system, we have a four-hour blind spot between check structures. So, she recommended putting in some telemetry between those two structures to get an earlier read in case we needed to make changes. The report she gave us at the end was quite helpful.

32

Kris Polly: How do you think she adjusted to life in rural Idaho?

John Lind: Really well, and surprisingly fast. She and her husband had lived in Canada for a year, so I think it helped that she had been accustomed to similar driving laws, American vehicles, and what life is generally like over here. I think she adjusted very quickly.

Kris Polly: Emily mentioned she went to a football game.

John Lind: Yes, one of the first things she asked as we were first leaving the airport [in Salt Lake City] was whether or not it was gridiron season. We told her it was actually just starting and offered to take her to a game if she wanted to go. I guess that was one of her bucket list items to do while she was here. She had watched the show Friday Night Lights and was surprised that the real thing was very much like that. She ended up going to two or three games in total.

Kris Polly: What was your board’s overall impression of the exchange?

John Lind: Overall they were very impressed with Emily’s knowledge and her interest in learning about district operations.

She went with a couple board members to look at their farming operations, and they appreciated that. It was all very positive.

Kris Polly: Looking ahead, are you starting to think about whom you may send to Murray next year for the second half of this exchange?

John Lind: The board of directors and I are thinking very seriously about it. The perspective that Emily brought to the exchange was valuable and relevant. Her knowledge of district operations, customer focus, planning, and water policy complimented Burley Irrigation District’s efforts make its operations more efficient and with an eye toward the future. In evaluating the exchange, we have to quantify the value to the district and the impact of losing a key member of our small staff for three or four weeks during the offseason. We’ve set aside some funds for the exchange and will assess the feasibility over the next couple of months.

Kris Polly: What would you hope for that person to bring back to you from Murray?

John Lind: What I hope is that we’d have one of our employees go there and get an in-depth look at Murray’s operations and maintenance, learning about how they automate their system and the amount of maintenance required would be helpful to us.

Kris Polly: Do you think the exchange program would be of value to other districts?

John Lind: It’s a program that should expand and continue.

It was a bit of a leap of faith to have an outsider come and really get into the nuts and bolts of the organization. I had a bit of apprehension and trepidation about it, but I found it to be extremely valuable. The idea of this exchange is valuable beyond just our experience, and other districts should strongly consider it, too.

Should your irrigation district be interested in participating in the Irrigation Leader International Exchange Program, please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Irrigation Leader

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

Bridging the gap between idea + achievement

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

Offices worldwide

Email:

hdrinc.com

slh@lclaw-nm.com

Over 22 million feet of USA canal successfully repaired for the long haul.

AquaLastic® is a tried and tested brand. It’s safe and effective and it does the job right for a lasting repair.

Our new successful program equips irrigation districts and companies with high pressure application equipment as well as the necessary training for to use it efficiently.

Over 22 million feet of USA canal successfully repaired the long haul.

Ask about our different AquaLastic® versions for different field conditions. It just keeps getting better!

AquaLastic® is a tried and tested brand. It’s safe and effective and it does themade. job right for a lasting repair.

USA Technology and USA Ask about our different AquaLastic® versions for different field conditions. It just keeps getting better!

USA Technology and USA made.

AquaLastic® is a product of Hydro Consulting LLC. www.fixcanal.com

Tel 509-467-8487 E Mail customerservice@fixcanal.com

Online quote tool available for an effective, quick reply. Or ask for an informational webinar for your team.

AquaLastic® is a product of Hydro Consulting LLC. www.fixcanal.com Tel 509 467 8487 E Mail customerservice@fixcanal.com Online quote tool available for an effective, quick reply. Or ask for an informational webinar for your team.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Innovators

Terrestrial Weed Control in Solano Irrigation District

By Jeff Null

T

he Solano Irrigation District encompasses roughly 71,000 acres and supplies water to approximately 45,000 of those acres. Our water primarily originates from a federal project, Lake Berryessa, and is conveyed through a series of canals and pipelines to the members in the district. In that distribution system, there are 95 miles of unlined dirt canals. The district operates the canals from the middle of April through the middle of October, after which time they dry out. When the dry canals become a terrestrial environment rather than an aquatic one, it leads to terrestrial weeds invading the canals during the winter months.

When recharging the canals in April, the weeds can negatively affect our ability to move water down the canals. The weeds will typically die once the canals are flooded but will then break apart and plug gates, screens, and flow meters. Our customers are usually flood irrigating or taking water into a drip system, so that debris causes problems for them. It is vital to keep the canals clear to prevent negative effects on our customers.

Challenges of Weed Removal

There are a few options for removing weeds from the unlined canals. The first is to wait for the weeds to emerge and then try to mechanically remove them or spray them with materials designed to kill emerged weeds. In both cases, however, the dead or cut weeds will pose the same problems with debris once the canal is flooded. Alternatively, the use of preemergent herbicides is preferred when applicable. The preemergent herbicides are designed to be put on the ground when the canal is dry and then brought into the soil by rainfall, where they inhibit the germination process of nested seeds. This preventative type of control method mitigates the issue of dead or cut weeds clogging up canal infrastructure after being treated.

One of the challenges in using preventative herbicides in a canal going to an irrigated field is that it could move into the crop fields once the canal is flooded, potentially resulting in damage to our customers’ crops.

There are only a few herbicides labeled for this type of use. The active ingredient diuron (registered under multiple names), which has been used for many years in dried canals, has some drawbacks. Once diuron is applied, it requires 4 inches of rainfall before the canal can be reopened safely to transport water. Recent years

36

of drought have led to instances in which the product was applied but did not receive enough rainfall for the canal to be reopened afterward.

The challenge is to find a product that works for canals but that does not have the limitations of the diuron.

In 2014, Valent and Alligare approached the district regarding a new registry for their product, Payload. The new registry was to include the use of the product in canals. This was attractive to the district, especially if it could perform as well as diuron but with fewer limitations. We liked the idea of being on the leading edge of development and getting first-hand experience with the product before it went on the market, so we agreed to participate in the trial.

Tests and Trials

We worked cooperatively with Valent, Alligare, and the University of California, Davis, which did the research to get a special local needs pesticide label for the product so it could be used in the canals. We selected a canal that would be easy to get into and perform the trial while also being Herbicide application with an injection boom truck.

Irrigation Leader

conducive to weed growth. The first trial was done over one winter season, starting in fall 2014 and concluding in early 2015.

The testing team applied the product and then went back and did counts to assess the effectiveness against the weeds in the canal. They applied the product in a randomized block design, conducted controls in areas where there was no treatment, and treated other areas with competing products. This allowed for good comparisons of effectiveness.

One issue the California Department of Pesticide Regulation wanted us to examine was whether any of the herbicide would remain in the canal and possibly enter the water when the canal was flooded for use.

We treated another section of canal and waited 60 days before bringing water back into the canal and took samples just before the water reached a field. The samples contained no detectable traces of the herbicide.

That 60-day window of time represents the minimum amount of time between application and canal reopening. That timeline worked for our district, but some districts were asking for a shorter 30-day window between application and opening the canals. So last year, we did another trial in which we opened a canal 30 days after application. The results were the same as for the 60-day window: There were no detectable traces of the product in the water. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation recently approved the change of the special local needs label for Payload to allow a 30-day window between application and use of the canal for irrigation water delivery.

Application Process

The application process for the canals is effective and efficient. We apply the Payload herbicide with a truck that has a tank sprayer and an adjustable boom that can be adjusted to fit the size and shape of the canal. The herbicide is a dry, flowable product that, when combined with water via an agitation device, forms a thin slurry—a suspension— before it is injected. The injectors read the truck’s ground speed, calculate the width of the pattern, and adjust the amount of product dispensed to keep it consistent with the desired volume. It helps give a very accurate application.

A local company in Livermore, California, Spraytec, put the tank and equipment on the truck and set it up. The Payload herbicide can also be put in a tank mix and applied with a boom by hand, but the trucks have the advantage of being able to adjust for ground speed.

The Payload herbicide is applied as a layer on top of the soil. We can typically treat 40–60 acres per day, depending on weather and wind conditions. Because the product requires rainfall after application to enter the soil, we try to time the application to coincide with approaching rainstorms.

Results

For us, Payload herbicide has been effective, safe, easy to inject, and cost competitive compared to spraying or mechanically removing weeds after they emerge. In both tests conducted during the trial and in our subsequent use, we have found Payload herbicide to be superior to any other herbicides we have used and far preferable to attempting to treat the weeds after they have emerged. Our two primary concerns were how effective the product would be against the weeds and how safe it would be for our customers’ irrigated fields and crops, and it has performed very well on both counts. We have been very satisfied with the results thus far, and we will continue to use the product on all our unlined canals beginning in fall 2016.

Jeff Null is the biologist in charge of pest management programs at the Solano Irrigation District. He has been with the district for nine years. You can reach Mr. Null at jnull@SIDWater.org.

Irrigation Leader

Weeds in a canal after water removal.

37

INDUSTRY STANDARD SINCE 1955

ECONOMICAL • DURABLE • RELIABLE

IRRIGATION WATER MEASUREMENT Mc® Propeller Flow Meter

Water Specialties Propeller Meter™

Agriculture’s Best Selling Propeller Meter for over 60 Years

Engineered to Deliver Superior Performance • Time Tested • Rugged Design • Quality Construction

• Easy to Install • Easy to Operate • Easy to Field Service

Surface Water Propeller Model Manufactured with Proven Design Features

McCrometer, Inc.

3255 W. Stetson Ave., Hemet, CA 92545 (800) 220 - 2279 | www.mccrometer.com

Surface Water Reverse Propeller Model with Debris Shedding Design

CONTACT US TODAY FOR DETAILS

McCrometer Great Plains

115 South 16th St., Aurora, NE 68818

(888) 501 - 0019 | www.mccrometergreatplains.com

5TH ANNUAL IRRIGATION LEADER OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Sponsored by Irrigation Leader Magazine

February 1–2, 2017 • Phoenix, Arizona IRRIGATION LEADER magazine is sponsoring the 5th annual Operations and Management Workshop with a theme of Emergency Management Plans. The purpose of the workshop is to provide an opportunity for General Managers and Directors of irrigation districts and water agencies to discuss ideas and exchange information on a variety of district operational and management-related issues, to build out-of-state working relationships, and to learn from their peers. The issues and topics have been selected by General Managers and Board Directors and pertain directly to the management and improvement of irrigation districts and water agencies.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1 8:00 a.m.

8:30–10:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:30–12:00 p.m.

12:00-1:00 p.m.

1:00 p.m.

2:00 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

3:30 p.m.

4:30 p.m.

5:30 p.m.

Physical Training by Quincy Columbia Basin Irrigation District Creating Emergency Management Plans for Irrigation Districts and Water Agencies Networking Break Using Social Media in Emergencies Lunch on Your Own How to Verbally De-escalate Situations Identifying and Resolving Staff Problems Ice Cream Sundae Break Board Members’ Role in Emergencies Innovative Managers Reception

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2 8:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:30 a.m.

12:00 p.m.

1:30 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

3:30 p.m.

4:30 p.m.

5:30 p.m.

Physical Training by Quincy Columbia Basin Irrigation District Saving Lives and Money With Safety Programs Networking Break Planning for a Canal Break: Lessons Learned Sponsored Lunch Australia Irrigation Education Tour and Exchange Program Networking Break Innovative Technologies Open Forum Reception New Zealand Irrigation Education Tour (February 18–25, 2017) Door Prize Sponsored by Irrigation Leader Magazine

ONLINE REGISTRATION: You can register for the Operations and Management Workshop at www.WaterStrategies.com. Please

complete and submit the online form as soon as possible, as space will be limited. Should you have a particular topic you would like discussed during the Open Forum at the meeting, please add it to the registration form in the space provided. Should you have other ideas for the Workshop, please share those as well. Updates to the agenda will be provided as registrations are received.

HOTEL RESERVATIONS: We have reserved a block of rooms at the Crowne Plaza Phoenix Airport Hotel, located at 4300 East

Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85034. The rate is $139.00 single or double occupancy per night plus tax. Your reservation includes a complimentary full express breakfast, complimentary 24-hour airport shuttle service, complimentary wireless Internet service, and complimentary valet parking for registered guests with in-and-out privileges. To make or confirm your reservations at the special Irrigation Leader rate, please call (855) 586-8475 or 1-888-233-9527 and identify yourself with the Irrigation Leader group no later than Friday, January 6, 2017.

COMPLIMENTARY AIRPORT SHUTTLE. To request the hotel’s complimentary airport shuttle, please call 1-855-586-8475 as soon as you have retrieved your luggage. Reservations for your return to the airport can be made at the Front Desk.

QUESTIONS: Please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Thank you for your time. We hope to see you in Phoenix.

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

BISMARCK, ND PERMIT NO. 433

Bridging the gap between idea + achievement

2016 CALENDAR October 11–14

October 12–14 October 26–28 November 3 November 3–4 November 14–16 November 20–22

November 29–December 2 December 14–16 January 9–11, 2017 January 10–11, 2017 January 11–13, 2017 January 24–26, 2017 January 25–27, 2017 February 1–2, 2017 February 15–17, 2017 February 18–25, 2017

February 23–24, 2017

Offices worldwide

hdrinc.com

United States Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Fort Collins, CO Texas Water Conservation Association, Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX WESTCAS, Fall Conference, Phoenix, AZ Columbia Basin Development League, Annual Conference, Moses Lake, WA Idaho Water Users Association, Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID National Water Resources Association, Annual Convention, San Diego, CA Nebraska Water Resources Association & Nebraska State Irrigation Association, Joint Convention, Kearney, NE Association of California Water Agencies, 2016 Fall Conference & Exhibition, Anaheim, CA Colorado River Water Users Association, 2016 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV Groundwater Management Districts Association, Annual Winter Meeting, Fort Worth, TX National Water Resources Association, Leadership Forum, Las Vegas, NV Four States Irrigation Council, Annual Meeting, Fort Collins, CO Idaho Water Users Association, Annual Convention, Boise, ID Colorado Water Congress, Annual Convention, Denver, CO Irrigation Leader Operations and Management Workshop, Phoenix, AZ Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance, Annual Convention, Ignacio, CO New Zealand Water Leader Educational Tour, Sponsored by Irrigation Leader and Municipal Water Leader Magazines Family Farm Alliance, Annual Meeting and Conference, Las Vegas, NV

For more information on advertising in Irrigation Leader magazine, or if you would like to have 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.waterstrategies.com/irrigation-leader