You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   Stimulus funding targets irrigation efficiency
The GOAT Blog

Stimulus funding targets irrigation efficiency

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

felicep | Aug 10, 2009 06:25 PM

Drought intensified this summer throughout California and most of the West. Already over-allocated, water supplies are short across most of the West prompting irrigation cutbacks, dewatered streams, endangered species conflicts and protests in irrigation-dominated areas like the west-side of California’s San Joaquin Valley.  Drought also exacerbates water quality problems; less streamflow means more concentration of pollutants and greater negative impacts to fish and other Public Trust resources.

Under these circumstances the April announcement from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) would distribute $84.8 million for “vital watershed projects” was especially welcome.  Vilsack recently announced another 42.3 million in recovery funds for watershed projects.  Both amounts are part of the federal government’s economic stimulus program. Many funded projects are located in the West. According to USDA information, most western projects will pay for infrastructure and equipment to enhance on-farm irrigation efficiency. 

The use of USDA conservation funds for projects that claim to reduce agriculture water demand began in a big way with the 2002 Farm Bill. That legislation included $50 million for on farm water conservation within the Klamath River Basin under the USDA’s Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP). The 2008 Farm Bill made EQIP water conservation funding available nationally and economic stimulus legislation has augmented those funds.

There is no doubt that these projects will stimulate rural economies. Equipment will be purchased, contracts awarded and people will be hired. But will the projects actually reduce demand for scarce water supplies?  Recent testimony from the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General reported on this blog and my experience with NRCS water conservation programs on the ground suggests that the promised reduction in agricultural water use might not occur.

Below is a photo showing a Klamath EQIP project in the Scott River Valley - a major Klamath tributary. This project is supposed to reduce irrigation demand.

 

 Klamath EQIP Project, Scott Valley, California

 

What you are seeing in the photo above is a center pivot irrigation system. These systems are not as efficient as drip irrigation but more efficient than wheel lines, flood irrigation and other common irrigation systems.

In most western river basins irrigated agriculture consumes 80% to 90% of all water used during the summer dry season.  Irrigation engineers and a new report by the Pacific Institute tell us that we can reduce water demand significantly by investing in irrigation efficiency. That would more than address the current excess of demand over supply and make new dams and reservoirs unnecessary. The project in the photo above, however, actually results in MORE not LESS water use during the critical late summer and fall salmon migration season. Here’s how a prohject that was supposed to result in less water use actually results in more use:

The center pivot irrigation system in the photo does not replace but rather augments a flood irrigation system. In the first case the water used is groundwater; in the case of flood irrigation the water comes through a ditch and is diverted from a salmon stream.

The idea behind the project is to replace inefficient flood irrigation with the much more efficient center pivot system. But in this case the irrigation ditch went dry with the end of snowpack. This occurs here in July or early August. Prior to the expensive new center pivot system installation, irrigation would end on this parcel when the ditch went dry. Now, however, the rancher can switch to the center pivot well system and pump groundwater through the rest of the growing season.

This might still increase streamflow IF the groundwater pumped was not closely connected to surface flow. But in this case groundwater and streamflow are closely interconnected.  When groundwater and surface flow are closely connected excessive groundwater pumping directly reduces stream flow or totally dewaters nearby streams. Ultimately most groundwater is connected to surface flow if only remotely.

Below is a photo of one of the many streams in the Scott River Valley which are dewatered as a result of excessive water diversion and groundwater pumping. Groundwater pumping is, for the most part, not regulated in California. 

 

Dewatered Etna Creek, Scott River Valley

 

Details about Klamath EQIP projects are considered proprietary and protected from disclosure even though the projects were funded by the federal government. Most Klamath EQIP projects which I’ve investigated do not conserve water but simply provide irrigators with a second source of irrigation water – usually groundwater. Implementation of Klamath EQIP has resulted in groundwater levels falling more precipitously in some Klamath River sub-basins. The USGS has documented the rapidly lowering water table in the Lost River area where the federal Klamath Project provides irrigation water.

The pasture land in the first photo is on a rocky hillside. It would not make sense to invest in an expensive irrigation system for such land. As a farmer would put it, the proposition would "just not pencil out." But if you can get the system for free you can increase forage production and your bottom line.

Many in agriculture expect direct crop subsidies to producers will be phased out in order to achieve new global free trade agreements.  USDA Conservation Program payments are already viewed as the source of government payments most likely to replace direct crop payments. Agricultural interests work behind the scenes to assure that USDA conservation programs deliver the maximum benefits to farmers and corporate bottom lines with a minimum of actual change in operations – including water consumption.

Most conservation organizations do not pay attention to these details; they support conservation program funding even when no substantial conservation benefits can be demonstrated.  Organizations like The Nature Conservancy receive substantial amounts of USDA Conservation Program funding directly.

Agriculture is pursuing a similar strategy with respect to carbon cap and trade. The Climate Change Bill which passed the House of Representatives shifts responsibility for determining cap and trade rules for agriculture and forestry from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Agriculture. I suspect agriculture and timber operatives believe they can influence the NRCS cap-and-trade regulations and implementation so that they get carbon storage credits for doing what they are already doing. That is not the way to reduce carbon emissions. But that is another story for another time.     

Do we really want water efficiency?
Ed Quillen
Ed Quillen
Aug 17, 2009 04:42 PM

    That's a great post about the Law of Unintended Consequences at work: efforts to use agricultural water more efficiently lead to more overall water consumption.
 
    Beyond that, I'm not sure I'm a fan of efficiency. Among the pleasant parts of our landscape are the wending rows of cottonwoods growing along the older irrigation ditches.
 
    Cottonwoods are "phreatophytes" -- a scientific term for plants that love water. A Colorado Supreme Court decision 35 years ago may have saved them.
 
    In brief, a landowner calculated how much water the trees consumed, cut down the trees, and claimed the right (called a "salvage right") to use the water that had formerly gone to the trees.
 
    A water court granted the right, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision, mostly on the grounds of administrative complexity relating to the priority dates of salvage water. Any water developed that way, the court held, should go to the river system, not the landowner.
 
    The court did not rule on this as a matter of constitutional principle, and held that the Colorado legislature was free to find a way to put these salvage rights into the existing priority system.
 
    My farmer friend John Mattingly suggested that the legislature do just that, as it would be a cost-effective way to eliminate the water-guzzling tamarisk (or salt cedar) from Colorado -- the landowners would do it at no cost to the public if they could acquire water rights in the process.
 
    If efficiency rids of the tamarisk, fine by me. But I would miss those cottonwoods.
 
Salvage Rights: http://www.westernwaterlaw.com/[…]/SouthPlatteRiverTaskMemo.htm

John Mattingly's take:
http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc2006/01470181.html

 

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. Rancher vs BLM: a 20-year standoff ends with tense roundup |
  2. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  3. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  4. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  5. The future of the Sacramento Delta hangs in the balance | But few Californians seem to grasp what is at stak...
  1. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  2. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  3. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  4. Will the Colorado River reach the Gulf of California once more? | Photographs of last month's historic water pulses....
  5. Locals resist a Bakkenization of the Beartooths | South-central Montanans oppose new drilling, forew...
 
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone