WaterWired

USGAO Report: 'Water Scarcity - DOD Has Not Always Followed Leading Practices to Identify At-Risk Installations'

How about this? Not good! GAO report: 'Water Scarcity - DOD Has Not Always Followed Leading Practices to Identify At-Risk Installations'

Download Highlights

Download Full_Report

Fast Facts
Do military installations have enough water to meet mission needs?

DOD completed 6 assessments—3 at the department level and 3 at the military-service level—and found 102 installations at risk of water scarcity. But these assessments were conducted differently and produced different results. The department-level assessments didn’t follow leading practices, and officials disagreed over whether the service-level assessments could be used across DOD.

We recommended that DOD assess whether it should conduct a better department-wide assessment or use the approach in the service-level assessments to identify installations at risk of water scarcity.

Rocket Launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California: An Installation Identified at Risk of Water Scarcity

What GAO Found
GAO found that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have assurance that it is using reliable information regarding which installations are at risk for water scarcity. When comparing the results of six Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and military department assessments on installations vulnerable to water scarcity, GAO found that they varied markedly, raising questions about their quality and about which source of information DOD is using to determine which installations are vulnerable to water scarcity (see figure).

Installations Identified in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Military Department Assessments as Being at Risk of Water Scarcity

An OSD official stated that the three OSD-produced assessments provided the best information available on which installations are at risk of water scarcity. However, GAO found that these assessments did not reflect four of five leading practices for identifying and analyzing water scarcity—practices that contribute to a reliable assessment of water availability. Specifically, OSD did not always (1) identify current water availability, (2) identify future water availability, (3) take into account all sources of water, or (4) precisely identify locations. Further, although GAO found that the three military department assessments aligned with all leading practices, OSD officials disagreed as to whether these assessments can and should be used to identify installations at risk of water scarcity across the defense enterprise. Until OSD resolves the question as to whether it should conduct a department-wide assessment of installations that aligns with leading practices or whether it should rely on the military department assessments, the department will not have assurance that it is using reliable information to assess water scarcity.

Why GAO Did This Study
DOD reported in January 2019 that critical installations are at risk of water scarcity—that is, of not having sufficient water available to meet their mission needs. According to military department officials, installations depend on water for activities such as training, weapons testing, fire suppression, and sanitation. In its 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment, the U.S. Global Change Research Program reported that warming temperatures will continue to cause worsening droughts and the decline of surface water quality.

Senate Report 115-262 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's identified or potential effects of water scarcity. For this report, GAO evaluated the extent to which DOD has assurance that it is using reliable information to identify installations at risk of water scarcity. GAO analyzed DOD's six assessments conducted from April 2017 through January 2019 to identify installations at risk of water scarcity and compared the assessments with five leading practices for identifying and analyzing water scarcity. GAO also interviewed officials from OSD and the military departments and contacted a nongeneralizable sample of 17 installations identified in OSD's assessments to reflect diversity in military service, mission, and water scarcity.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Office of the Secretary of Defense assess whether it should conduct a coordinated, department-wide assessment aligned with leading practices or rely on military department assessments to determine which DOD installations are at risk of water scarcity. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation.

For more information, contact Elizabeth Field at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao.gov.

Wait until The Donald hears about this!

Enjoy!

"The road to success is always under construction." - J. Nusch (from the Frankfurt Airport, which is always under construction)

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

The Time Has Come: Global Groundwater Sustainability - A Call to Action

If you are a groundwater junkie or something similar and you've been living under a rock, you probably have not heard of the Global Groundwater Sustainability: A Call to Action initiative that has arisen from the recent AGU Chapman Conference in Valencia, Spain, 21-24 October 2019: Quest for Sustainability of Heavily Stressed Aquifers at Regional to Global Scales.

Here is a letter that Tom Gleeson, one of the leadership team members (along with Karen Villholth, Richard Taylor, Deb Perrone, Jay Famiglietti, David Hyndman, Anne van Loon and Yoshi Wada), sent me to see if I would distribute it. Glad to!  

Dear Colleagues,

I am excited about a new initiative called "Global Groundwater Sustainability: A Call to Action" that was first drafted at the recent Chapman conference in Valencia, Spain.  Overall, we are a global group of scientists calling for action to ensure groundwater benefits society now and into the future, and hope that you would like to join us by signing.

You can see the statement, list of signatories and sign yourself on www.groundwaterstatement.org. We already have over 80 signatures from ~20 countries [Note: now the numbers are 166 and 48] with representatives from the major international groundwater organizations (IAH, NGWA, IGRAC, IWMI etc.) and leading academics and practitioners.  We are preparing for press releases in December so if you are interested please sign and distribute in a timely fashion.  We humbly recognize that many of you, influential actors in the science and policy of groundwater sustainability, were not able to be present for the drafting of the above statement but we hope that you will support this initiative since we recognize the importance of needing to act as a group of groundwater scientists and practitioners including diverse voices from across the world. 

If you would like to spread the word, please 1) share widely by email to your personal networks of scientists, practitioners and experts in groundwater and related fields; 2) share on social media using #groundwaterstatement and link to webpage; and 3) write about it on blogs or newsletters (see waterunderground post). If you have any questions, concerns or ideas on how to spread the word, please contact Tom Gleeson tgleeson@uvic.ca.

We apologize for cross-posting but hope you are interested in joining this important initiative.

Warmly, Tom Gleeson

Here is a PDF of the statement:

Download Global_Groundwater_Sustainability

The approach appears not to be one of 'doctrinaire' sustainability but recognizes that there are places whose growth and survival have been predicated upon 'unsustainable' use of groundwater. We cannot just cut off those places. I know of some places where I have urged the locals to practice MAD (Managed Aquifer Depletion): 

Download MAD_article

The conference attendees were likely heavy on the scientific/engineering aspects of groundwater so some important disciplines (sociology, planning, ethics, economics, policy, management, etc.) were likely absent when the statement was crafted. Those folks will need to be engaged so that's why it will be important to bring them on board. 

The organizers speak of convening a Global Groundwater Summit in 2022. I hope they propose to present sessions at conferences other than all-groundwater ones. Those of us in groundwater know the story; we need to get the word out to others. I would suggest trying to organize sessions at the 2021 9th World Water Forum in Dakar and at the Stockholm World Water Week (I think the SIWI organizers now recognize groundwater).

It reminded me of the ill-fated Groundwater Visibility Initiative (GVI) the AWRA and NGWA conjured in 2016. Here's my PPT:

Download Campana_session10_awra_15nov2016

I proposed a session on the GVI for the 2018 World Water Forum in Brasilia but that request went nowhere. We had neither the gravitas nor the 'horsepower' behind it, unlike the current initiative, which is like the GVI on steroids!

Am I bothered/bitter that the GVI went nowhere? No way - glad to see the current one take off, with a lot greater chance for success. Besides, I get to recycle some old material.

Enjoy!    

“If surface water can be compared with interest income, and non-renewable groundwater with capital, then much of the West was living mainly on interest income. California was milking interest and capital in about equal proportion. The plains states, however, were devouring capital as a gang of spendthrift heirs might squander a great capitalist's fortune.” – Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert, p. 457