Colorado River Future- Part 2

The future for Colorado River water users – Part 2

Part 1 of the comments about the Bureau of Reclamation’s “Moving Forward 2015” (MF) report dealt with municipal and industrial (M&I) water and the challenges and opportunities facing the 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River (CR) water.

Part 2 of the comments will focus on agricultural water in the CR basin states, of which we are a member of the Upper Basin.Agricultural water makes up the majority of the water used by basin states. MF reveals what’s being done or is planned and what has already been done by way of conservation and efficiency to deal with the demand and supply challenges that face the basin.

Agricultural water played a significant role in the recent Envision Utah “Your Utah, Your Future” survey, the results of which have been published recently. Utahns who participated in the survey (~2 percent) want agriculture in Utah to remain a vibrant part of our economy, but what cost and what changes could be made that would not only help agriculture but also help residents to have more M&I water for the future?

While M&I water receives much attention in the report, agricultural water use is covered extensively due to the opportunities conservation and efficient methods present. Efforts that have already been made, are in progress or planned in the future to achieve better results are covered in detail. With 70 percent or more, depending on where the water is being used in the CR basin states, going to agricultural activities, conserving its use is critical. By 2060, it’s assumed that an additional one million acre-feet per year of water could be saved through water use efficiency improvements and other measures including fallowing.

It’s acknowledged in that report that this would be a considerable challenge given the significant number of conservation and related activities already underway in some CR basin areas. Reducing agricultural production not only impacts local communities’ economies but also presents challenges for our national food security, according to the report.

It’s interesting to note that agricultural productivity in the CR basin has increased by about 25 percent since 1980 while per-acre use has remained relatively steady. The case studies presented in the report show how creative some areas have been and seem to present great opportunities for those willing to work for more efficient use.

Additionally, in our fast-growing state and our fast-growing county, in particular, much agricultural land and its water have already been converted to M&I, and it stands to reason that the future will see more conversion. With approximately 60,000 acre feet (af) of agricultural water (per Utah Division of Water Resources) not even counted in our available water numbers (due to water rights issues according to Ron Thompson, county water manager), there’s much opportunity. Since an acre foot (af) is approximately 326,000 gallons, this represents 19.5 billion gallons of water. Although not all would be eligible for conversion to M&I, Western Resource Advocates’ “Local Waters Alternative to the Lake Powell Pipeline” asserts that 13,700 - 35,200 af could be converted to M&I.

My focus is on BOR’s MF report, but it seems pertinent to turn to other water-related documents to find additional backup information pertaining to our state and county. According to “The Economic Contribution of Agriculture to the Economy of Utah in 2011” published in 2013 by the Center for Society, Economy, and the Environment, Utah’s agriculture production and associated processing sector accounts for 14.1 percent ($17.5 billion) of the total state output, based on Utah’s 2011 Gross State Product of $124.5 billion. So, obviously our agriculture adds value, but with more than 80 percent of our state’s water going to agricultural use, conservation and determining where best to use the water are critical to making our water last with our state’s future growth. With a majority of our county’s production being hay, alfalfa rather than food, review is needed.

The Bonneville Research May 2015 report focused on Utah’s agricultural sector with data from the U.S.D.A, Utah’s 2014 State Agricultural Overview, and three other entities’ reports. With 87 percent of Utah’s water used for agriculture, according to the Bonneville report, it became clear that value from our agricultural sector is open for debate. In all, 54.4 percent ($987.7 million) of the value of Utah agricultural products sold in 2012 was due to cattle and calves, milk from cows, crops and hay, and related products. Seventy-three percent of all Utah agricultural acreage is dedicated to forage land used for alfalfa, hay, grass silage, green chop and corn for silage. Our 780,000 cows represent less than 1% of the nation’s total while each dairy cow requires 20 gallons per day of water.

Alfalfa hay represented 82.2 percent of the value of Utah’s commodities grown in 2014. Because of its long growing season, deep root system and dense canopy of vegetation, this high water-use crop generally requires from 20 to 46 inches of water per season.

It was clear from the Bonneville report that more work needs to be done to deal with our own agricultural water practices to be more effective. The MF report supports this idea but admits, again, that challenges will be faced. In many areas, perhaps not Utah, much conservation work in the agricultural sector has already been accomplished and further conservation may be more difficult and more costly.

“Flowing Toward 2050 – Utah’s Water Outlook,” Utah Foundation’s 2014 report, shows that statewide agricultural water makes up 82 percent of our state’s water, while 8 percent is CII, 6 percent residential outdoor and 4 percent residential indoor. Although this report and the Bonneville differ slightly in their percentage of water going to agricultural use, with 90 percent of Utahns living in urban areas by the 2010 Censuscount, there’s a definite imbalance in the use of our water. That said, many of us love the agriculture in our state and some polls have shown that Utahns value keeping it in the future.

In fact, Envision Utah’s “Your Utah, Your Future” 2015 survey's agricultural results support that, although only 2 percent of Utahns participated in the survey. (http://envisionutah.org/projects/your-utah-your-future/item/346-results)

The Utah Foundation’s report revealed that between 2007 and 2012 Utah had an increase of 1,300 farms, although of smaller average size and total acreage than in the past. In 2012, 10 percent of Washington County was in farms, or 147,991 acres, with approximately 20,000 of those acres (13.60 percent) either irrigated or sub-irrigated. From 1982 to 2007 more than 300,000 acres stateside were converted to urban. Still, in 2012, 20 percent of Utah’s land was in farms. It’s projected that by 2050 10% of the state’s farmland will be urbanized. The report agrees that the bulk of Utah’s agriculture is dedicated to alfalfa and pasture land.

Problems facing water conservation in the seven CR basin states include water laws that vary by state. In Utah, water rights and the use-it-or-lose-it philosophy may make it more difficult than in some other states to achieve conservation and often create perverse incentives. In California, policy changes have allowed farmers with unused allocations to sell, lease or transfer water. Whether that would be effective in Utah remains to be seen.

The “2005-2010 Statewide Summary of Land Use” shows that our county, included as part of the Kanab Creek/Virgin River Basin, had 18,352 total irrigated acres in 2007 with 14,448 of the acres dedicated to alfalfa, grass hay and pasture. In Washington County, specifically, 42.2 percent of our water goes to urban, 3.8 percent to riparian (maintaining stream/river health), 4.7 percent other water and 49.2 percent to all irrigated land. The MF report supports the figure although a little less (18,000 acres) with approximately 17,900 directly related to CR water.

Envision Utah just released the results of the agricultural portion of their "Your Utah, Your Future 2050" survey. The results indicate that Utahns want to protect and increase food production in Utah, but Utah’s food production has declined significantly. According to Envision Utah’s agricultural survey results, “Utah’s food production has declined precipitously to where Utah now produces only 2 percent of its vegetables, 3 percent of its fruit, 25 percent of its dairy, 98 percent of its grains, and 135 percent of its protein needs, in part because the current land development process incentivizes the loss of water and land for farming.” Results show that Utahns want to see more land put into production and/or change crops to vegetables and fruits, and Utahns are willing to cut back on watering to accomplish this. But with only 2 percent of Utah's population answering the survey there's some question as to how other Utahns feel about this issue.

Since many, if not most, Utahns overwater currently, this should not be too difficult, but are they willing. Given the amount of water that’s going to agriculture in our state, it’s not a matter of getting more water. It’s a matter of using what we have more efficiently.

Getting back to the MF report, other CR Basin areas have already achieved much in agricultural conservation and efficiency. Given that our approximate sales from areas served by CR water, $200 million, is rather insignificant compared to California, Arizona and Colorado at $2.71 billion, $2.27 billion and $980,000 million, respectively, perhaps Utah hasn’t had the motivation other states have had to move ahead with agricultural conservation and efficiency measures.

Apportioned water in the CR Basin exceeds long-term annual average yield, 16.4 MAF (million acre feet), according to the approximately 100-year record of CR natural flow. In Upper Basin states (Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and some of Arizona and New Mexico) the majority of agricultural water goes to either field crops or irrigated pasture with a significant portion of these crops used for local animal feed. Thereby, animal products account for three quarters of Upper Basin agricultural sales. Although this use of water may not change much due to a variety of factors including local customs, MF reports that when measures are implemented to increase efficiency, not only is water used more efficiently but higher yields may result.

The report also shows that most of this agriculture operates under water supply-limited conditions so the available supply does not meet the full demand of the crops grown. This is due, in part, to inappropriate delivery timing, and lack of sufficient infrastructure to store, divert, and deliver available supplies. MF clearly states, “Technology, infrastructure, and management all affect the efficiency of agricultural water use.” The efficiency of agricultural watering practices ranges from 60-95 percent depending on whether flood, sprinkler, or drip/microsprinkler irrigation is used. Tailwater recovery is used in some areas where water can be collected before it runs off the field but is restricted in some areas due to state water law or food safety concerns.

Although field crops in the Lower Basin states of Arizona and California still make up a significant portion of their agriculture, vegetables, fruits, nuts and other products make up nearly half. Arizona in particular has realized some significant value through conservation and efficiency improvements. A 2014 study of Yuma County (YCAWC, 2015) showed that overall sales and productivity have increased while per acre water use declined significantly. A change, in the 1970s, to crops of high-value but low water use that can be “double cropped” is the primary cause. Even before the 1970s, Yuma’s agricultural practices had been changing considerably since the early 1900s.

Food industry demand resulted in area growers adapting consolidated production processes that resulted in the area becoming the winter vegetable production center for the U.S. The area is producing higher crop yields with less water and irrigating 50 percent more crop acres on about 20 percent less water. This is just one prime example of how agricultural efficiencies have been realized when the need and willingness are present.

The MF report includes 15 case studies dealing with agricultural conservation and efficiency programs. The majority of the programs are in California (six) with all annual water savings in thousands of acre feet per year clearly quantified (KAFY) while only two programs are in Utah and water savings are not quantified. Arizona’s two are also not quantified, nor is Wyoming’s one case study. Of Colorado’s three cases, two are quantified and one is not. Some are not quantified, such as Yuma’s, since they’re “ongoing” while Utah’s are shown as “implemented” but still no quantification is provided. The case studies include fully implemented projects, planned projects, and feasibility studies and cover a variety of topics including fallowing agreements, on-farm enhancements, new storage and water banking. Annual water savings resulting from the programs are shown for eight of the fifteen programs and range from 17 KAFY (thousand acre feet per year) to 200 KAFY.

Source: The Spectrum

Read More Related Content On This Topic - Click Here

Media

Taxonomy

• Research
• River Studies
• River Basin management