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)

CRS InFocus Report: 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture' (9 January 2020)

Another informative CRS InFocus two-pager - this one by Genevieve K. Croft: 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture' ,

Click on the graphics to enlarge them

Download CRS_InFocus_GHGs_US_AG_9January2020

Background
Agriculture and land-use activities have played a central role in the broader debate on energy and climate policy options in the U.S. and abroad. Although most federal legislative proposals to reduce net U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would not require reductions in the agriculture sector, some would incentivize voluntary actions. For example, legislation considered by a previous Congress would have established a separate carbon offset program, with tradeable credits, for domestic agriculture and forestry practices that reduce or sequester (store) carbon. Some proposed carbon tax legislation would finance activities in the agriculture sector that support these objectives with a portion of the new tax revenue.

Agriculture is both a source and a sink of GHGs (Figure 1). Sources generate GHG emissions that are released into the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change. Sinks remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and sequester carbon through physical or biological processes. Agricultural emissions include many GHGs of interest to policymakers: CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Agricultural sinks remove CO2 through photosynthesis and store carbon in plants and soil. Despite these sinks, U.S. agriculture is a net GHG source.

Enjoy!

"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes

CRS Report: Indian Water Rights Settlements (Updated: 26 December 2019)

From Charles V. Stern comes this updated CRS report: 'Indian Water Rights Settlements'.

Great topic!

Download CRS_Report_Indian_Water_Rights_Settlements_26Dec2019

Summary
In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases.

Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation among tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, and others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.

After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend in perpetuity the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, which is currently scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funds for these settlements through FY2029.

Several individual Indian water rights settlements have recently been considered and approved by Congress, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In addition to opposition to some proposed settlements, one of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds and the related question of cost-shares among federal, state, local, and tribal interests.

At issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.

How about a conclusion?

Conclusion
Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements, negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and subsequent funding. As of the end of the 115th Congress, 32 settlements had been enacted since 1978, and four settlements had been approved administratively. Additional funding for ongoing settlements and authorization of and appropriations for new settlements are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered andapproved by authorizing committees and others (i.e., whether the settlements are accompanied by formal statements of Administration support, cost estimates). In addition, the preferred extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and constructing projects, may be a central question under consideration in future settlements under consideration by Congress.

Enjoy!

“Like a man who has been dying for many days, a man in your city is numb to the stench.” - Chief Seattle

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

M. Gibson and M. Campana AWRA MAR Presentations: 1) 'Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and System Dynamics Model...Yakima Basin' 2) Harvesting Glacial Meltwater...with MAR'

1) M. Gibson and M. Campana. Abstract: page 11

Download 2019 AC Abstracts_FINAL

PDF (36 MB) of PPT: Download AWRA_SLC_GIBSON

2) M. Campana and M. Gibson  Abstract: page 14

Download 2019 AC Abstracts_FINAL

PDF of PPT: (14 MB) Download AWRA_SLC_CAMPANA

Download AWRA_SLC_CAMPANA

Enjoy! We did!

"The science of hydrology would be relatively simple if water were unable to penetrate below the earth's surface." - Harold E. Thomas (via groundwater geek)