WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Bureau of Land Management: FY2020 Appropriations' (Updated: 15 January 2020)

Carol Hardy Vincent penned this two pager CRS InFocusu report (updated 15 January):  2020): 'Bureau of Land Management: FY2020 Appropriations'.

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Download CRS_InFocus_BLM_FY2020_Appropriations_ 15Jan2020

The BLM is active primarily in the western USA. It manages a total of 386,000 square miles, more than Texas and Arizona combined It is not universally loved in the west, especially by ranchers, farmers, loggers, oil and gas folks, and miners. II'm sure I could go on; my wife Mary Frances is not fond of BLM because of the wild horse issue.  'Damned if we do, damned if we don't' should be its motto. It is part of the Department of Interior.  

Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 246 million acres of federal land, nearly all in the West. Under its multiple-use mission, BLM manages lands for diverse purposes, including livestock grazing, energy development, recreation, and preservation. The agency also administers onshore federal energy and mineral resources generally and supervises mineral operations on Indian trust lands.

For FY2020, issues for Congress included determining the amount of funding to provide BLM programs and activities and the terms and conditions of such funding, as well as whether to enact related Trump Administration proposals.

Because no regular FY2020 discretionary appropriations were enacted until after the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2019, BLM initially received continuing appropriations at the FY2019 level. Regular appropriations of $1,369.8 million were enacted on December 20, 2019 (P.L. 116-94, Division D). This was $23.6 million (1.8%) more than the FY2019 amount of $1,346.2 million. It also was $182.4 million (15.4%) more than the Administration’sFY2020 request ($1,187.4 million) but $42.0 million (3.0%) less than the FY2020 House-passed amount ($1,411.8 million) and $29.6 million (2.1%) less than the FY2020 Senate-passed amount ($1,399.4 million). House- and Senate-passed levels were contained in H.R. 3055.

BLM discretionary appropriations generally are provided in Title I of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. Mandatory (permanent) appropriations also are provided to BLM under various statutes within the jurisdiction of authorizing committees. For FY2020, BLM estimated its mandatory appropriations at $201.3 million. This would be a decrease from the $241.2 million estimated for FY2019, in large part due to an anticipated reduction in receipts from the sale of BLM lands in Nevada.

Enjoy!

"Not all those who wander are lost." - J.R.R. Tolkien (in @AP via @TheWeek)

A New Year's Day Tribute to 'Good Guy' John W. Fordham, R.I.P.

Sometimes I use New Year's Day to remember something I forgot to do in the previous year. This is one of those times but at least I can rectify my omission. What follows was originally written in August 2019. Why I delayed its publication is beyond me, but a recent card from John's widow Prella spurred this long-delayed remembrance. Here goes...

I got the news the other day from a Facebook post by Alan McKay: John Fordham had died with his family present at his home in Carlsbad, CA. Alan went on to say that John was 'one of the good guys'. My feelings exactly.

I usually write obituaries and recollections about people like Stan Davis, Tom Prickett, et al. - folks who were well-known to WaterWonks, water buffaloes, and fellow travelers.

John William Fordham? Not so much, although he was well-known to and respected by the Nevada water community. Yes, he was one of the good guys who always deflected praise and was a contemporary of mine (five years older).  John was a civil engineer - BS and MS from the University of Nevada-Reno, specializing in hydrology and water resources management. He undoubtedly had as much (if not more) influence on my early professional development than the aforementioned men.

We met in July 1976 (or maybe it was May, when I flew to Reno for an interview) at the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Reno, my first job as a freshly-minted PhD from the University of Arizona. I was in one of DRI's centers, the Center for Water Resources Research, later changed to Water Resources Center (now the Hydrologic Sciences Center).

Since that was my first 'real' job (at $17,286 per year!) John and his academic mentor, Dr. Vulli Gupta, took it upon themselves to clue me in. Vulli was more about academics (we started writing an (unfinished) introductory hydrology textbook) and John was more about the nuts-and-bolts of how the Center ran, who did what, Nevada's water resources, etc. John was not the only who performed this function but I soon learned that he seemed to know about what (and who) worked and what (or who) didn't. He was also not a bullshitter. He was always there to help anyone.

I also came to realize that he knew a lot about hydrology, Nevada water and its idiosyncrasies, who had it in for the Center and all the other stuff. Turns out that his cousin Roland Westergard was the State Engineer. I am unsure that was a good thing.

My respect for John grew after the death of George Burke Maxey in early 1977. Burke was a legendary hydrogeologist who had been the only head of the WRC. When an outsider was brought in to replace Burke, John and a few others were viewed as being disloyal and/or too much oriented to the 'old ways', shunted aside, and were no longer in the power structure. John accepted this in stride and continued to do what he was asked and did what needed to be done. He was the consummate 'good soldier'.

John was also a darn good hydrologist/civil engineer. I learned quite a bit about surface water hydrology from him. He taught me much about flash floods, water quality, dams, water law and rights, ET. He was a practitioner, not a researcher (although most of us knew he wanted to finish his PhD). Vulli would bug him to no avail (I think John was in the 'ABD' classification).

Flash forward to late December 2019 when Prella Fordham's annual holiday card arrived. I had never written her abou John's death. In my response to her card, I wrote that when I thought of John three things came to mind:

1) he was an 'engineer's engineer' - other would seek his advice/counsel;

2) he put his organization's interests above his own; and

3) he could always be counted upon to do what he was asked, and to do it right, on time.

And Alan McKay's assessment was right: he was truly one of the good guys.

My only regret: I never told him any of the above while he was alive - how much I appreciated him and valued his help.

My funniest remembrance of John? At one time our offices were adjacent. One day in the early 1980s we had a lively discussion about CDs. We must have been engaged for 5-10 minutes before we each realized that I meant 'compact discs' and he meant 'certificates of deposit'.

Yes, John, I miss you (especially the technical sessions at Trader Dick's in the old Nugget). I learned a lot about fluid flow at those tutorials. 

You can read his obituary here.

Note: Comsider a donation to the Fordham Family Civil Engineering Scholarship Endowment #175449 with checks payable to UNR Foundation/0162, 1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV, 89557 https://www.unr.edu/giving/foundation

"C'mon! You know better than that!" - John W. Fordham (said to me on more than one occasion)

CRS Report: 'Central Valley Project - Issues and Legislation' Updated: 25 November 2019

It may seem like this report has been published before (8 November 2019). That's true, but CRS reports are periodically updated and the Central Valley report can't escape.

So Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh just (25 November 2019) updated it: 'Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation'.

Download CRS_CVP_Issues_Legislation_25Nov2019

Summary
The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is one of the world’s largest water supply projects. The CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and reservoirs and numerous pieces of water storage and conveyance infrastructure. In an average year, the CVP delivers more than 7 million acre-feet of water to support irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to municipal users in Southern California.

CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation. These contractors receive varying levels of priority for water deliveries based on several factors, including hydrology, water rights, prior agreements with Reclamation, and regulatory requirements. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta or Delta) is a hub for CVP water deliveries; many CVP contractors south of the Delta receive water that is “exported” from north of the Delta.

Development of the CVP resulted in significant changes to the area’s natural hydrology. However, construction of most CVP facilities predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws. Much of the current debate related to the CVP revolves around how to deal with changes to the hydrologic system that were not significantly mitigated for when the project was constructed. Thus, multiple ongoing efforts to protect species and restore habitat have been authorized and are incorporated into project operations.

Congress has engaged in CVP issues through oversight and at times legislation, including provisions in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) that, among other things, authorized changes to operations in an attempt to provide for delivery of more water under certain circumstances. Although some stakeholders are interested in further operational changes to enhance CVP water deliveries, others are focused on the environmental impacts of operations.

Various state and federal proposals are currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to affect CVP operations and allocations. In late 2018, the State of California finalized revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. These changes would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers reach the Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (and thus would further restrict water supplies for other users). The Trump Administration generally has opposed these changes. At the same time, the Trump Administration is pursuing efforts to increase CVP water supplies for users, including reconsultation on long-term operations of the CVP under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). The state has opposed these efforts. Efforts to add or supplement CVP storage and conveyance also are being considered and are under study by federal and state entities.

In the 116th Congress, legislators may consider bills and conduct oversight on efforts to increase CVP water exports compared to current baselines. Congress is considering whether to approve funding for new water storage projects, and it also may consider legislation to extend or amend previously enacted CVP authorities (e.g., WIIN Act authorities that are expiring or have exceeded their appropriations ceiling).

Introduction
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior (DOI), operates the multipurpose federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, one of the world’s largest water storage and conveyance systems. The CVP runs approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield (Figure 1). It supplies water to hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated agriculture throughout the state, including some of the most valuable cropland in the country. It also provides water to selected state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as to some municipal and industrial (M&I) water users.

This report provides information on hydrologic conditions in California and their impact on state and federal water management, with a focus on deliveries related to the federal CVP. It also summarizes selected issues for Congress related to the CVP.

Recent Developments
The drought of 2012-2016, widely considered to be among California’s most severe droughts in recent history, resulted in major reductions to CVP contractor allocations and economic and environmental impacts throughout the state.1 These impacts were of interest to Congress, which oversees federal operation of the CVP. Although the drought ended with the wet winter of 2017, many of the water supply controversies associated with the CVP predated those water shortages and remain unresolved. Absent major changes to existing hydrologic, legislative, and regulatory baselines, most agree that at least some water users are likely to face ongoing constraints to their water supplies. Due to the limited water supplies available, proposed changes to the current operations and allocation system are controversial.

As a result of the scarcity of water in the West and the importance of federal water infrastructure to the region, western water issues are regularly of interest to many lawmakers. Legislation enacted in the 114th Congress (Title II of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation [WIIN] Act; P.L. 114-322) included several CVP-related sections.2 These provisions directed pumping to “maximize” water supplies for the CVP (including pumping or “exports” to CVP water users south of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San Francisco Bay, known as the Bay-Delta or Delta) in accordance with applicable biological opinions (BiOps) for project operations.3 They also allowed for increased pumping during certain storm events generating high flows, authorized actions to facilitate water transfers, and established a new standard for measuring the effects of water operations on species. In addition to operational provisions, the WIIN Act authorized funding for construction of new federal and nonfederal water storage projects. CVP projects are among the most likely recipients of this funding.

Due to increased precipitation and disagreements with the state, among other factors, the WIIN Act’s CVP operational authorities did not yield significant new water exports south of the Delta in 2017 and 2018. However, the authorities may be more significant in years of limited precipitation and thus may yield increased supplies in the future. Although use of the new operational authorities was limited, Reclamation received funding for WIIN Act-authorized water storage project design and construction in FY2017-FY2019; a significant amount of this funding has gone to CVP-related projects.

Several state and federal proposals are also currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to significantly alter CVP operations. In mid-2018, the State of California proposed revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. These changes would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers reach the California Bay- Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (and would thus further restrict water supplies for other users). At the same time, the Trump Administration is exploring options to increase CVP water supplies for users, including new operational protocols under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544).

I'll await the next update.

Enjoy!

"What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?" - F. Sherwood Rowland

Report: 'High & Dry - Medical Cannabis Oversight & New Mexico’s Public Water Systems'

This sounds like click bait! Nahhhh....

This white paper came across Middle Rio Grande (metro Albuquerque area) Water Assembly listserve yesterday. Here is the message accompanying it:

I’m attaching a white paper distributed at Coronado SWCD’s board meeting last Thursday. One of Coronado’s board members is also a member of the board of the Sile Domestic Water & Sewer Association, and this issue has been a matter of much discussion at recent Coronado board meetings. The impact of medical cannabis production on rural domestic water systems appears to have been totally overlooked by the State. This impact will be greatly exacerbated if the State legalizes recreational marijuana. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Legislature, and would seem to fall squarely within the mission of the Water Advocates. 

Download Hi_and_Dry_Final

Executive Summary

The issue of water is completely lacking from New Mexico’s legislation and licensing requirements for medical cannabis. Current commercial cannabis producers use 463% more water than the average households in our communities. It is often grown in greenhouses that cannot use filtered surface irrigation water. Consequently, this commercial agricultural crop will often use water from municipal water supplies or domestic wells. This paper presents concerns of two public water systems, the Sile Mutual Domestic Water & Sewer Association (SMDWSA) and the Peña Blanca Water & Sanitation District (PBWSD), with medical cannabis farms in their communities. Their experience highlights several concerns that legislators and regulatory agencies should share with public water systems over the impacts that inadequately regulated medical cannabis production operations may have on the quantity and quality of rural New Mexico’s drinking water. Most significant of these impacts are:

• • Unauthorized use of public water systems’ drinking water to irrigate medical cannabis crops
• • Overage of the permitted amount of water allowed for a public water system
• • Potential threats to current and future federal funding for necessary improvements and infrastructure.
• • Mischaracterization of the water withdrawal
• • Agricultural runoff and wastewater production that may be excessive and are not licensed or adequately monitored.

SMDWSA and PBWSD have identified actions that they must take to protect their members’ drinking water and the water systems’ water rights. Unfortunately, these efforts, while necessary, do not address the larger issues of inadequate oversight and regulation by the State.

While licensing of medical cannabis has been overseen by the Department of Health, the true impacts of the agricultural crop on surface and ground water have been overlooked. Medical cannabis is not chile, yet cannabis production (hemp and medical cannabis combined) seems to be overtaking that crop – but there are no guardrails for protecting the communities hosting LNPPs
(Note: LNPPs = Licensed Non-Profit Producers). 

The legislature must move to protect New Mexico’s drinking water and the rural public water systems that serve most of the State. The Department of Health must coordinate with the Department of Agriculture, the Environment Department, the Office of the State Engineer, and other regulatory agencies to protect New Mexico’s rural communities and their most precious resource – safe drinking water.

Jumping ahead...

Recommended Actions

Legislators and permitting agencies need to work with public water systems to put in place safety measures that will establish LNPPs as good neighbors rather than as interlopers that violate and exploit long-standing communities and water systems and then move on.

New Mexico’s legislators and agencies need to address the consequences of legalizing medical cannabis production. It needs to normalize the agricultural production of this crop by enforcing the rules and regulations that normally apply to agricultural production. Medical cannabis is not a“normal” crop, however, and it therefore requires additional oversight and explicit instruction for LNPPs.

1. The Legislature should pass legislation requiring all applicants for a medical cannabis license to demonstrate a valid water right for commercial agricultural production. The LNPP application should require that applicants specify where they will get agricultural production water and prove that they have are using the water legitimately.

2. The State of New Mexico should provide additional funding to the OSE to hire staff to review all applications submitted for a medical cannabis license, both existing and prospective. OSE should meter all new well permits. Perhaps these costs could be included in the LNPP licensing fee.

3. Current LNPPs using water from a domestic well for commercial cannabis production should apply to the OSE to change the purpose of use and go through the public process that allows affected communities and public water systems to weigh in on that application.

4. Any domestic permit issued by the OSE to a LNPP must be required to be metered in accordance with NMAC 19.27.5.13 C (1)(c). Any public water system affected by the over pumping of their domestic water for medical cannabis production should be reimbursed for twice (2 times) the over diversion amount during the following calendar year. Repayment should be made by acquiring or leasing a valid, existing water right for commercial agricultural production and submitting a plan for the proposed repayment to the State Engineer for approval. The OSE should enforce NMAC 19.27.5.15 C in all cases where an LNPP is not in compliance with its permit.

5. The Department of Agriculture should explicitly oversee LNPPs’ use of herbicides, pesticides, rodenticides, or other pest abatements that could impact drinking water quality.

6. The LNPP license should indicate the number of workers and demonstrate that there are appropriate sanitation facilities for these workers. The Environment Department should review applicants to address considerations that could affect surface and ground water quality.

SMDWSA and PBWSD are primarily concerned with water quality and quantity issues and have limited this discussion to those, although community members have identified other impacts not touched on here.

Conclusions

The promise of rural economic development from medical cannabis production seems to be a myth in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. No one from Sile or Peña Blanca has been hired by the LNPPs that have established farms in these communities. This may very well be the case in other communities as well. LNPPs’ use of municipal drinking water to irrigate medical cannabis crops can leave public water systems vulnerable to, and responsible for, abuses of their water rights. It impacts the effectiveness of these systems and potentially the quality of the water they provide. It has the potential to affect their ability to qualify for funding to repair and improve their infrastructure.

SMDSWA and PBWSD are taking action to address these issues to the extent that they can through their governing documents and public outreach.

Nevertheless, under the current licensing practices for medical cannabis in New Mexico, public water systems are vulnerable in a process that they cannot fully control. New Mexico’s public water systems provide safe drinking water to communities throughout the state. They need the help of legislators and regulators to protect this, New Mexico’s most precious resource.

We respectfully request that the concerns and experiences that we have shared with you in this document help guide your influence on future and current rulemaking and enforcement to provide appropriate safeguards for drinking and domestic water in our communities. We trust that you will make decisions to guide rulemaking and lawmaking to keep our communities safe for generations to come. We are available as a resource if you have questions or need additional information.

Who knew? Another unintended consequence.

Enjoy!

"The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective." -  Richard Schickel

GAO Report: 'Irrigated Agriculture - Technologies, Practices, and Implications for Water Scarcity'

It's been a while since I posted a GAO report. This one makes the grade: Irrigated Agriculture: Technologies, Practices, and Implications for Water Scarcity.

Download USGAO_Irrigated_Agriculture_12Nov2019

Fast Facts

Nationwide, irrigation consumed 20-30 trillion gallons of water in 2015. Most irrigation is in the West, where water is relatively scarce and precipitation low.

The 3 main irrigation technologies—gravity, sprinkler, and micro—can all be modified to be more efficient and save water. But in practice, farms may use such water savings to increase yield, switch to thirstier crops, or irrigate more land.

To address water scarcity, federal policymakers could offer incentives to use more efficient technology or practices, in return for farmers’ agreeing to reduce water consumption.

Irrigation and water scarcity across the contiguous United States.

What GAO Found

In the United States, irrigation accounts for more than 40 percent of freshwater use. Several areas in the nation are both heavily irrigated and considered water stressed. Farmers can select irrigation technologies and water conservation practices to better manage freshwater, an increasingly limited natural resource. Farmers have access to multiple irrigation technologies that could increase efficient use of water. Irrigation technologies include micro irrigation, which applies small amounts of water close to the plants; sprinkler systems, which spray water through nozzles; and gravity systems, where water floods the field or runs down furrows. In addition, practices such as irrigation scheduling may help farmers avoid over-irrigation. Farmers can also use precision agriculture technologies, such as soil moisture sensors, computer or smartphone decision support tools, and remote control of irrigation equipment to help optimize irrigation scheduling.

Farmers adopt and use efficient irrigation systems to maximize farm-level profitability, through improved crop yields and decreased costs and other inputs. Drivers of farmer adoption of irrigation technology include increasing profits and reducing risks, but we did not find much evidence that conserving water was a factor in adoption of technology. Barriers limiting adoption of more efficient technology include small farm size, large capital investments, and lack of available information on the technologies. For precision agriculture technologies, lack of connectivity, such as access to broadband, can be a barrier, particularly in rural areas.

Farmers’ use of efficient irrigation technologies alone may not conserve water. GAO’s modeling of an illustrative irrigated watershed shows farmers’ use of efficient irrigation scheduling—such as using data from soil moisture sensors to schedule irrigation—can reduce the amount of water applied to the field, resulting in less water withdrawn from a source, which in this model was groundwater. At the same time though, GAO’s modeling shows water that is consumed through evapotranspiration does not change with efficient irrigation scheduling, while return flows to the source bodies of water may be reduced. While, in some instances, reduced return flows may be beneficial, as such flows can convey pollutants downstream, reduced return flows may also result in less water available to downstream users.

Simulated impact of switching to efficient irrigation scheduling

GAO’s analysis of survey data on farms that converted to more efficient irrigation systems shows there is no change in the amount of water farmers apply to a field with more efficient technology, except for a few technologies and crop types. One such exception is in orchards and vineyards, where switching to micro irrigation was associated with less water applied per acre. Efficient technology may actually increase water use, as it provides farmers with additional flexibility to expand irrigated land or to switch to more water-intensive crops.

Policy Options

The request for GAO to conduct this study specified a policy goal of reducing the impact of irrigated agriculture in locations facing water scarcity in the United States. With that goal in mind, GAO identified the following options federal policymakers could consider:

(1) Promote the use of more efficient irrigation technology and practices, such as irrigation scheduling.

(2) Promote the use of precision agriculture technologies, such as soil moisture sensors and weather stations.

However, in light of GAO’s findings, these options may need to be combined with appropriate agreements in order to enable and encourage water savings. Such agreements could include incentives to farmers for conserving water. Both policy options have the potential benefit of reducing the amount of water applied during irrigation. However, challenges include ensuring that water savings on the farm translates to water conservation on the larger watershed level.

Why GAO Did This Study

Demand for freshwater surpasses the amount naturally available in some areas of the United States. The agriculture sector competes for this limited resource, and withdraws and consumes the most freshwater of any user in the nation. GAO was asked to conduct a technology assessment around agricultural water use.

This report provides an overview of irrigation technologies and on-farm water conservation practices, factors influencing the adoption of these technologies, and implications of their use for water scarcity.In conducting this assessment, GAO reviewed scientific literature; convened an expert meeting with the assistance of the National Academies; visited farmers, academics, and industry representatives; interviewed officials from federal agencies; modeled water use in an illustrative watershed; and performed a regression analysis on U.S. Department of Agriculture irrigation, crop, and technology data.

GAO describes two policy options that federal policymakers could consider relating to irrigation technology and discusses their benefits and challenges.

For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons at (202) 512-6412 or personst@gao.gov or Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov.

Enjoy!

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." - Weiler's Law