managing agricultural water impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdffinal paper e497b—the...

71
Managing Agricultural Water Impacts Final Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies Elizabeth Covalla Industrial Engineering—Political Science Chethan Pandarinath Computer Engineering—Science, Technology and Society James Williams Mechanical Engineering—Science, Technology and Society Jon Williams Environmental Engineering—Philosophy Andy Wingo Nuclear Engineering—Physics—Spanish Supervised by Drs. Joseph R. Herkert and Jerome P. Lavelle North Carolina State University Fall 2001

Upload: others

Post on 10-Aug-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water

Impacts

Final Paper

E497BmdashThe Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course

Offered in conjunction with the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies

Elizabeth Covalla

Industrial EngineeringmdashPolitical Science

Chethan Pandarinath

Computer EngineeringmdashScience Technology and Society

James Williams

Mechanical EngineeringmdashScience Technology and Society

Jon Williams

Environmental EngineeringmdashPhilosophy

Andy Wingo

Nuclear EngineeringmdashPhysicsmdashSpanish

Supervised by Drs Joseph R Herkert and Jerome P Lavelle

North Carolina State University

Fall 2001

Copyright ccopy 2001 Elizabeth Covalla Chethan Pandarinath James Williams

Jon Williams Andy Wingo

Typeset by the authors with the LATEX2ε Documentation System

Abstract

This technology assessment explores the degree to which agriculture affects the quality and

quantity of water resources available in the United States The magnitude of agricultural

water impacts is quantified to the extent possible and selected impacts related to groundwa-

ter overdraft and surface water diversion are explored in detail Technological tools available

to help relieve agricultural water impacts are described as are policy tools available to the

Congress A list of priority policy options to help effect agricultural water resource sustain-

ability in the United States is presented and analyzed

Keyword List

agricultural water impacts policy options groundwater overdraft surface water diversion

non-pointsource pollution technology assessment best management practices resource de-

pletion

ii

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

11 Introduction 1

12 Definitions 2

13 Problem Statement 3

14 Stakeholders 4

15 Problem Categories 5

16 Technology Tools 5

17 Priority Policy Options 6

2 Problem Background 7

21 The Challenge of Quantification 8

22 Agricultural Water Sources 10

221 Surface Water 10

222 Groundwater 11

23 Agricultural Water Use 13

231 Irrigation 14

24 Agricultural Water Discharge 16

241 Nitrates 17

242 Pesticides 19

25 Summary 21

iii

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 2: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Copyright ccopy 2001 Elizabeth Covalla Chethan Pandarinath James Williams

Jon Williams Andy Wingo

Typeset by the authors with the LATEX2ε Documentation System

Abstract

This technology assessment explores the degree to which agriculture affects the quality and

quantity of water resources available in the United States The magnitude of agricultural

water impacts is quantified to the extent possible and selected impacts related to groundwa-

ter overdraft and surface water diversion are explored in detail Technological tools available

to help relieve agricultural water impacts are described as are policy tools available to the

Congress A list of priority policy options to help effect agricultural water resource sustain-

ability in the United States is presented and analyzed

Keyword List

agricultural water impacts policy options groundwater overdraft surface water diversion

non-pointsource pollution technology assessment best management practices resource de-

pletion

ii

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

11 Introduction 1

12 Definitions 2

13 Problem Statement 3

14 Stakeholders 4

15 Problem Categories 5

16 Technology Tools 5

17 Priority Policy Options 6

2 Problem Background 7

21 The Challenge of Quantification 8

22 Agricultural Water Sources 10

221 Surface Water 10

222 Groundwater 11

23 Agricultural Water Use 13

231 Irrigation 14

24 Agricultural Water Discharge 16

241 Nitrates 17

242 Pesticides 19

25 Summary 21

iii

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 3: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Abstract

This technology assessment explores the degree to which agriculture affects the quality and

quantity of water resources available in the United States The magnitude of agricultural

water impacts is quantified to the extent possible and selected impacts related to groundwa-

ter overdraft and surface water diversion are explored in detail Technological tools available

to help relieve agricultural water impacts are described as are policy tools available to the

Congress A list of priority policy options to help effect agricultural water resource sustain-

ability in the United States is presented and analyzed

Keyword List

agricultural water impacts policy options groundwater overdraft surface water diversion

non-pointsource pollution technology assessment best management practices resource de-

pletion

ii

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

11 Introduction 1

12 Definitions 2

13 Problem Statement 3

14 Stakeholders 4

15 Problem Categories 5

16 Technology Tools 5

17 Priority Policy Options 6

2 Problem Background 7

21 The Challenge of Quantification 8

22 Agricultural Water Sources 10

221 Surface Water 10

222 Groundwater 11

23 Agricultural Water Use 13

231 Irrigation 14

24 Agricultural Water Discharge 16

241 Nitrates 17

242 Pesticides 19

25 Summary 21

iii

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 4: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

ii

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

11 Introduction 1

12 Definitions 2

13 Problem Statement 3

14 Stakeholders 4

15 Problem Categories 5

16 Technology Tools 5

17 Priority Policy Options 6

2 Problem Background 7

21 The Challenge of Quantification 8

22 Agricultural Water Sources 10

221 Surface Water 10

222 Groundwater 11

23 Agricultural Water Use 13

231 Irrigation 14

24 Agricultural Water Discharge 16

241 Nitrates 17

242 Pesticides 19

25 Summary 21

iii

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 5: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

11 Introduction 1

12 Definitions 2

13 Problem Statement 3

14 Stakeholders 4

15 Problem Categories 5

16 Technology Tools 5

17 Priority Policy Options 6

2 Problem Background 7

21 The Challenge of Quantification 8

22 Agricultural Water Sources 10

221 Surface Water 10

222 Groundwater 11

23 Agricultural Water Use 13

231 Irrigation 14

24 Agricultural Water Discharge 16

241 Nitrates 17

242 Pesticides 19

25 Summary 21

iii

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 6: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

iv Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

3 Selected Problem Impacts 23

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft 23

311 Higher Pumping Costs 23

312 Land Subsidence 24

313 Depletion of Surface Water 25

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality 25

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion 26

321 Habitat Loss 26

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge 26

323 Municipal Supply Problems 27

324 Pollution Concentration 27

33 Second-Order Impacts 27

331 Increasing Water Price 27

332 Loss of Farm Production 28

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture 28

334 Failure of Local Economies 28

4 Technologies 31

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity 31

411 Desalination 31

412 Dams and Reservoirs 32

413 Water Reuse 33

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency 36

421 Irrigation 37

422 Water-Thrifty Crops 40

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution 40

5 Priority Policy Options 43

51 Policy Tools 43

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 7: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts v

511 Regulatory Tools 44

512 Subsidy Tools 45

513 Informational Tools 46

52 Policy Options 46

521 Quality-Focused Policies 47

522 Quantity-Focused Policies 48

523 Comprehensive Policies 51

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 8: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

vi

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 9: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

List of Tables

21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs 8

22 Water consumption by food type 16

41 The typical costs of desalination 32

42 Irrigation methods 37

vii

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 10: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

viii

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 11: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

List of Figures

21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 10

22 Aquifer locations in the western United States 11

23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals 14

24 US pesticide usage in 1997 20

31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 24

ix

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 12: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

x

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 13: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

ldquoWhen the well is dry we know the worth of waterrdquo

Benjamin Franklin Poor Richardrsquos Almanac 1746

ldquoWater is a very good servant but it is a cruel masterrdquo

CGD Roberts Adrift in America 1891

ldquoIf the wars of this century were fought over oil the wars of the next century will

be fought over watermdashunless we change our approach to managing this precious

and vital resourcerdquo

Ismail Serageldin Vice President of the World Bank 1995

11 Introduction

Today at the advent of a new millenium the United States has been forced to undertake a

critical reexamination of national security policies Water resource management although

not traditionally at the vanguard of such issues is increasingly recognized around the world

as a crucial aspect of national security While the United States does not presently top the

list of water-scarce countries an examination of the available data casts into question the

security of water resources in the future Water use trends in the United States indicate

1

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 14: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

2 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

that the country will soon face a crisis in both water quality and water quantity unless

current policies and practices are amended

This problem-based technology assessment seeks to analyze the impacts of agricultural

water use in the United States and to propose solutions to effectively manage agricultural

water resources The goals of this assessment are as follows

1 Establish the problem as quantitatively as possible

2 Provide background and context for the problem aspects

3 Describe the direct and higher-order impacts of the problem

4 Examine the technologies available to solve the problem

5 Discuss the policy tools available to solve the problem

6 Predict the first and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions

12 Definitions

This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations In order to be

precise in the use of terms the following definitions are provided

bull Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs

bull Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge For example

a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource and a sewage treatment plant

represents an aquatic pointsource

bull Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge For ex-

ample land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and

other nutrients

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 15: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 3

bull Effluent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process

such as irrigation industrial production or municipal sewage treatment

bull Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater

bull Surface water - Water available in streams rivers lakes and reservoirs

bull Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production

methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts

13 Problem Statement

Agricultural operations including animal and crop farming are important contributors to

the depletion of water resource quality and quantity in the United States Agriculture

represents approximately 40 of total US water demand and irrigation is the largest

consumptive water use Agricultural operations have been identified by the Environmental

Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes

While reliable quantification of specific water quality and quantity impacts is gener-

ally unavailable the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial

problems are directly relevant to agriculture

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 16: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

4 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to

effect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management in light of the problems

listed above

14 Stakeholders

Because water is necessary for life all living things are stakeholders in this technology

assessment in the broadest possible sense For the purposes of this report stakeholders

are classified into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural

water resource policies The rights-holders most directly affected by the issues examined in

this report are

bull Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who

supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders Producers directly influence

water resources through agricultural withdrawal use and discharge

bull Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is mu-

nicipalities Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial

operations Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce

regions

bull Federal state and local government - Water resources are managed by a variety

of governmental agencies Because water is a resource crucial to national security the

government is a central stakeholder Laws respecting water are passed at all levels of

government with corresponding jurisdictions of enforcement

bull Indigenous groups - Treaty agreements allocate water rights to indigenous groups

across the country In some regions these stakeholders have been under pressure from

agriculture and municipalities to relinquish their claims

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 17: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 5

bull Environmental advocacy groups - Water quality and quantity issues related to

agriculture have wide-ranging impacts on the environment Individuals seeking to

protect the environment constitute a stakeholder group that regularly participates in

the formulation of US policy

bull US trade partners - As an importer and exporter of products on the world market

changes in the cost or quantity of production of agricultural goods in the United States

will affect other nations

15 Problem Categories

The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology as-

sessment in terms of the water cycle of the United States This water cycle begins with

a source proceeds to a use and terminates with a discharge After providing background

and context for the broad range of agricultural water problems the report details some es-

pecially important first-order and higher-order impacts which result from current national

policies and practices The selected impacts focus on the withdrawal of groundwater and

the diversion of surface water for agricultural use

16 Technology Tools

Chapter 4 offers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water

available increasing the efficiency of use and limiting the impacts of agricultural pollution

The state of the art in agricultural technology is presented in order to provide background

for technology-based policy recommendations Ultimately most of the policies offered by

this technology assessment are not technology-focused since broader structural changes in

agricultural production are found to be needed to bring about water resource sustainability

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 18: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

6 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

17 Priority Policy Options

This technology assessment concludes with an examination of eleven priority policy options

available to the Congress to help bring about sustainable water management in the United

States The policy options are called ldquopriorityrdquo because they are identified as those most

likely to be highly effective or cost-efficient in acheiving national water resource sustainabil-

ity These policies were developed through a synthesis of the information presented in the

following chapters along with an understanding of the type of policy tools available to the

Congress The priority policy option are analyzed in terms of their anticipated first-order

and higher-order policy impacts

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 19: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Chapter 2

Problem Background

To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy atten-

tion this report first examines the historical context present situation and quantitative

significance of selected water resource problems in the United States This chapter is orga-

nized by following the mass flow of water from source to use to discharge

bull SourcesmdashSurface water and groundwater the two most significant water sources

for agriculture are described along with national usage trends and implications for

specific regions of the country

bull UsesmdashIrrigation the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production is

quantified and the potential for increases in efficiency is discussed

bull DischargesmdashThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quan-

tity loss and pollution contributions

Before an analysis of these areas it is important to understand the degree to which a

national water balance can be quantified By understanding the difficulties involved with

modeling the water cycle and using this data to project future water trends policy makers

will be better prepared to appreciate and to act on the information contained in this report

7

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 20: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

8 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Outputs

Precipitation Groundwater Pumping

Runoff Evaporation

Infiltration Transpiration

Seepage Streamflow

Table 21 The agricultural water cycle Inputs and outputs

21 The Challenge of Quantification

Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically

challenging From an engineering standpoint a balance for watermdashjust like any other mass

quantitymdashcan be achieved by determining input output and accumulation within a defined

area While such a mass balance is conceptually simple the practice of determining input

output and accumulation quantities can be difficult and expensive The list of major water

inputs and outputs at least is straightforward and is shown in Table 21

The difficulty for researchers is to translate the available data into water input output

and accumulation rates for the various geographical regions of the United States These rates

are interdependent for example streamflow (output) is affected by the local aquifer level

(accumulation) which is in turn affected by infiltration rates (input) Obtaining a water

balance for even a single aquifer requires substantial data collection mathematical modeling

and uncertainty analysis to compensate for the necessary assumptions and simplifications

(Carter Tschakert and Morehouse 2000)

The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geo-

physical research Where data is available competing models yield conflicting quantitative

analyses of US water resources In other cases data are not available to make detailed

analyses At present neither the United States Geological Survey nor the Environmental

Protection Agency have definitive position papers on the quantitative analysis of future

national water resource availability (USGS 2001a)

However there do exist some detailed local studies from which overall trends can be

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 21: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 9

gleaned In addition while researchers disagree about the quantity of water available and

the rate of water depletion nationally there are important points of general agreement

regarding US water resources (Frederick 1995)

bull Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate

bull Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage

capacity

bull Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration

bull Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality

degradation

bull Artificially low water prices for agriculture promote water use inefficiency

bull Present United States water policies are insufficient to ensure future water supply

security

In support of the last point of agreement one author notes

The largest hindrances to effective water management in virtually all countries

are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes subsidies and reg-

ulations) that shape public and private decisions development strategies and

resource use patterns (Stakhiv 1998)

This technology assessment discusses the above points of general agreement along with

the specific findings of regional studies as a foundation for justifying potential changes in

national policy The technological and policy tools available to address these issues are

explored and synthesized into a number of policy options The remainder of this chapter

will examine the foundational background and data on national water resource problems

thereby setting the stage for the analysis necessary to formulate effective policy

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 22: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

10 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 21 Estimated use of water in the United States 1950ndash1990 (USGS published at

5-year intervals)

22 Agricultural Water Sources

221 Surface Water

Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds lakes rivers streams and reser-

voirs Nationally surface water provides 63 of all water used by agriculture as well as 63

of all water used for public supply (USGS 2001a) Surface water is diverted for agricultural

and municipal use by pipelines and constructed channels such as canals For example the

Central Arizona Project canal transports Colorado River water 336 miles from Lake Havasu

to Phoenix then south to Tucson (Gelt Henderson Seasholes Tellman and Woodard 1998)

The system uses 14 pumping stations to lift water a total of 2400 vertical feet and was con-

structed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998)

Problem Downstream Effects

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses

(Simon 1998) Surface flow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in US Fish

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 23: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 11

Figure 22 Aquifer locations in the western United States

and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001) Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds

the safe flow available In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little

more than a trickle before reaching the Pacific Ocean leading to negative environmental

impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001)

222 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlie most of the land in the United States as well as all over

the world The water available in these subsurface storage regions is vast the High Plains

aquifer in the midwestern US is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of watermdash

nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al 2000) Unlike rapidly moving surface

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 24: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

12 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

water groundwater flows slowly through soil and rock fissures This slow movement means

that while water can remain stored in an aquifer for thousands of years once an aquifer is

depleted it can take thousands of years to recharge (Kranz Hay and Goeke 1993) Aquifers

that recharge slowly such as the High Plains aquifer are called ldquofossil aquifersrdquo since they

are essentially finite resources similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983) Aquifer locations

in the western United States can be seen in Figure 22

Since the mid-1950rsquos when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity

available in the US Midwest for irrigation pumping nationwide groundwater use as a

percentage of total water use has increased from 19 percent to about 31 percent (Bertoldi

and Leake 1993) Agriculture derives more than a third of its supply from this source In

addition aquifers supply 51 percent of all drinking water for the total population and 99

percent of drinking water for the rural population (USGS 2000)

Geographically groundwater withdrawals are concentrated in the western states which

account for 96 percent of all groundwater withdrawals nationally (OTT 2001) Groundwater

has enabled vast acres of arid and semi-arid land to be transformed into productive fields

Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for US crop

production (OrsquoDonnell and Rademaekers 1997)

Problem Groundwater Overdraft

According to the United States Geological Survey significant ground-water depletions have

occurred in the High Plains aquifer of the Midwest many areas in the Southwest (AZ CA

NM NV and TX) the Sparta aquifer in the Southeast (AR LA and MS) and in the

Chicago-Milwaukee area Studies estimate that current groundwater overdrafts in Arizona

total 25 million acre-feet per year approximately 50 in excess of maximum sustainable

yield (Carter et al 2000) A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that significant

regions of that state will have exhausted their groundwater supplies by 2025 (Buddemeier

et al 2000) In some areas of Nebraska groundwater levels have fallen almost 30 feet below

normal (Kranz et al 1993) The saturated thickness of the High Plains Aquifer has declined

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 25: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 13

by over 50 percent in some areas A bill seeking to establish the High Plains Groundwater

Resource Conservation Act introduced into the 107th Congress listed aquifer level declines

of over 100 feet between 1950 and 1997 as justification for legislative action (Congress 2001)

23 Agricultural Water Use

This section of the chapter first examines the general divisions among types of water use

before focusing on the primary agricultural use of water irrigation

Water uses can be separated into two broad categories

bull Withdrawal Uses Withdrawn water is as the name implies physically removed

from its source Examples of withdrawal uses include groundwater pumping and

surface water diversion for irrigation or municipal use Use of withdrawn water can

be further described as either consumptive or non-consumptive Non-consumptive

uses such as for municipal drinking water eventually return most of the withdrawn

water to the original source For example river water used for municipal drinking

water is mostly returned to the river as treated sewage Irrigation on the other hand

is a consumptive usemdashwater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed

via evapotranspiration It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in

the most efficient manner possible so as to minimize water loss

bull Non-Withdrawal Uses When non-withdrawal uses are considered electric power

plants become the largest users of water in the United States This is because thermal

power plants use vast quantities of water for cooling and hydroelectric plants use water

to drive gravity turbines However such uses do not require water to be withdrawn

from its source so they are generally not considered true ldquousersrdquo of water (Murray

1995) Additionally the use of bodies of water to receive and dilute discharges of

treated industrial or municipal waste is considered non-withdrawal

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 26: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

14 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 23 1990 irrigation withdrawals as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals

(USGS 1990)

231 Irrigation

Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States

Irrigation in the US accounts for 40 of total national water use The relative regional

importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 23

Problem Irrigation Efficiency

The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in efficiency can

substantially decrease water usage Worldwide irrigation is an average of 37 efficient the

average in the United States 50 is not much better (Postel 1985 Pimental 1997 11)

Only about 5 of the irrigated lands in the US use the most efficient irrigation methods

available (USDA 1998) If farmers across the country could raise total use efficiency to 90

it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 27: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 15

Problem Irrigation Subsidies

Federally subsidized electric cooperatives established under the New Deal program helped

bring low-cost electricity to the Great Plains regions of the United States Much of the

electricity brokered by the cooperatives went to power groundwater pumps that helped

transform arid plains into productive farmland (Rhodes and Wheeler 1996) Many of the

artificially low rate contracts between agricultural producers and electric suppliers were

guaranteed for 50 or 100 years and have not yet expired

Groundwater irrigation expanded the agricultural production capacity of the United

States but higher crop yields came with an environmental cost Indiscriminate pumping

of groundwater to support agriculture has led to severely depleted aquifer levels Today

nearly 30 percent of all US groundwater withdrawals occur within the High Plains aquifer

which underlies parts of Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico and Texas (McGuire

Stanton and Fischer 1999) As previously mentioned a Kansas research study has identified

significant areas of its aquifer which due to depletion will be unusable in 25 years or less

(Buddemeier et al 2000) Nevertheless the federal government continues to support na-

tionwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies

totaling $22 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001)

Problem Water Inefficient Crops

Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultiva-

tion of ldquowater inefficientrdquo crops The amount of water a crop transpires is dependent on

climate soil conditions and location Some crops have much greater water requirements

than others By shifting toward the production of more water efficient crops agriculture

could potentially reduce current and future national water demands Table 22 summarizes

the water efficiency of several common crops

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 28: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

16 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CropFood Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilo-

gram food)

Current US

Acres Har-

vested

Potato 500ndash1500 1128716

Wheat 900ndash2000 3185163

Alfalfa 900ndash2000 5977985

Sorghum 1100ndash1800 565327

CornMaize 1000ndash1800 10778245

Soybeans 1100ndash2000 4191102

Rice 1900ndash5000 3238026

Chicken 3500ndash5700 na

Beef 15000ndash70000 na

Table 22 Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000 USDA 1998)

24 Agricultural Water Discharge

After rainfall events or irrigation some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants while

the rest will leave the fields either by surface runoff or by infiltration into aquifers This

runoff and infiltration is often contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides that are used

in agricultural production Contaminated water pollutes surface water bodies as well as

groundwater aquifers reducing the quality of water available for future uses (USGS 2001b)

Agricultural pollution falls into the general category of non-pointsource pollution As

opposed to spatially concentrated pointsource pollution such as that generated by paper

mills or sewage treatment facilities non-pointsource pollution is geographically disperse

Because the pollution discharge occurs over a large area non-pointsource pollution is gen-

erally more difficult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart In addition the

effects of this pollution may take many years to notice since the environmental residency

and transport time for some toxins can be on the order of decades (USGS 2001b)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 29: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 17

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared non-pointsource pollution to

be the leading cause of water pollution in the United States with agriculture as the leading

contributor of non-pointsource pollutants into rivers and lakes (EPA 2001b) Agriculture is

also one of the least regulated dischargers of effluents primarily due to the difficult nature

of quantifying non-pointsource pollution

The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water Ac-

cording to the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos Fact Sheet for 1994 ldquo agriculture is

the leading source of impairment in the nationrsquos rivers affecting 72 of the impaired river

miles States attribute 56 of problems in lakes to agriculturerdquo (EPA 1994 2) The

Office of Technology Assessment agrees as stated in its document Environmental Tools for

Policy Makers ldquo[A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river

and lake water quality problemsrdquo (OTA 1995 19)

With regards to groundwater according to the 1994 EPA report the most frequently

cited pollutants are (EPA 1994 4)

bull Nitrates (49 states)

bull Volatile organic compounds (48 states)

bull Petroleum products (46 states)

bull Metals (45 states)

bull Pesticides (43 states)

Of these the first and the last pertain directly to agriculture This report analyzes

analyze these two pollutants separately with an emphasis on the sources effects and the

potential for pollution removal or prevention

241 Nitrates

Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers both man-made and natural (ie ma-

nure) However if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater they can leach into

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 30: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

18 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

groundwater or run off into surface water causing serious water quality degradation The

three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows with the first

two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998)

bull Application of manure to grazing and silage fields in livestock production

bull Use of fertilizers in agriculture

bull Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources

Problem Nitrate Toxicity

Once ingested into the human body nitrates can be converted into compounds called ni-

trosamines which are known carcinogens In addition nitrates can be chemically reduced

in the bodies of human infants to nitrites which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of

hemoglobin Nitrate concentrations in drinking water in the United States are limited to

10 parts per million primarily to prevent infant blood problems (Schrama 1998) While

municipal drinking water treatment plants chemically remove nitrate rural drinking water

wells near agricultural operations are likely to have elevated nitrate levels (OrsquoToole 1998

USGS 2001b)

Problem Eutrophication

Nitrates are necessary nutrients for algae and phytoplankton growth Discharge of nitrates

to surface water bodies greatly accelerates the natural process of eutrophication causing

algal blooms which ultimately lead to depleted oxygen levels and generally poor water

quality Eutrophication contributes to fish kills loss of riparian habitat death of beneficial

aquatic insects and taste and odor problems Eutrophication also increases the treatment

costs of surface water for municipal consumption (Pimental 1997) In Europe where nitrates

have historically been a significant problem nitrate overload has resulted in decreased

diversity of flora and fauna (Schrama 1998)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 31: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 19

Problem Animal Waste Management

The increasing density of animal agricultural operations has been an important factor in

nitrate pollution incidence For example the EPA estimates that one adult dairy cow

produces more than 5000 gallons of manure each year containing 200 pounds of nitrogen as

well as 43 pounds of phosphorus and 138 pounds of potassiummdashall of which are contributors

to water quality deterioration (NPS 1999)

Problem Rural Contamination

The USGS recently found that in 4 of the 33 major aquifers studied nitrate concentrations

in more than 15 percent of the samples tested exceeded the USEPA drinking-water standard

(USGS 2001b) All four aquifers are relatively shallow in agricultural areas and composed

of sand and gravel that is vulnerable to contamination by land application of fertilizers In

nearly one-half of the major aquifers sampled water from at least one well out of 20 to 30

wells exceeded the drinking-water standard Many of the major aquifers exhibiting high

nitrate concentrations were used for rural domestic water supply

242 Pesticides

Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their prop-

erty Herbicides insecticides rodenticides and fungicides all fall under the broad heading

of pesticides According to the EPA the United States spends a total of $119 billion per

year on pesticides Seventy percent of this total is used in agriculturemdashequivalent to about

$4400 per farm for 19 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999) The United States accounts

for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world with 18 pesticide manufactures 2200

formulators 17000 distributors and 375000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides

nationally The annual US pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds

(Aspelin and Grube 1999)

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 32: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

20 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 24 US pesticide usage in 1997 (Aspelin and Grube 1999)

Problem Human Toxicity of Pesticides

The compounds used in pesticides are frequently toxic to humans Pesticides ingested

aspirated or absorbed through the skin can cause harmful allergic reactions Organophos-

phates and carbamates two common forms of insecticide inhibit the production of the

enzyme cholinesterase important for controlling the function of the nervous system Addi-

tionally the class of pesticides known as bipyridyls cause severe lung tissue damage along

with kidney and liver problems Total recovery after exposure to pesticides may not occur

(Hetzel 1996)

Problem Widespread Contamination

Low levels of pesticides have been found in surface water in every region of the United States

Forty-three states have reported detecting traces of at least one of 143 pesticides and 21

by-products in groundwater (USGS 1995) Contamination is seasonal depending on the

timing of pesticide applications and the level of runoff based on precipitation levels In many

streams the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 33: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 21

drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times However

quantifying these contamination levels is difficult The difficulties in quantifying the threat

of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS

Our ability to assess the significance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by

several factors

bull First water-quality criteria have not been established for most pesticides

and pesticide transformation products and existing criteria may be revised

as more is learned about the toxicity of these compounds

bull Second criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not

account for possible cumulative effects if several different pesticides are

present

bull Finally many pesticides and most transformation products have not been

widely monitored in surface waters

These factors and the lack of data on long-term trends show significant gaps

in our understanding of the extent and significance of pesticide contamination

on surface waters The results of this analysis indicate a need for long-term

monitoring studies in which a consistent study design is used and more of the

currently used pesticides and their transformation products are targeted (USGS

1995)

25 Summary

This chapter has introduced the most significant agricultural water resource problems cur-

rently facing the United States A variety of issues related to agricultural water source

use and discharge were presented along with supporting data to quantify the relative im-

portance of each Having established the context and background for each problem this

technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 34: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

22 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 35: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Chapter 3

Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specific impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter there are a variety

of general impacts that relate to many of the identified problems Groundwater overdraft

and surface water diversion are two such impacts This chapter examines the first-order and

higher-level consequences of groundwater overdraft and surface diversion in detail providing

more evidence that agricultural water impacts deserve the careful attention of US policy

makers

31 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Groundwater overdraft occurs when water removal exceeds water recharge The slow natural

recharge rate of most aquifers and high rate of pumping has led to groundwater overdrafts in

most irrigated areas of the US over the past century Impacts associated with groundwater

overdraft are the results of falling water levels as the water stored in an aquifer is depleted

311 Higher Pumping Costs

As groundwater levels drop irrigators are forced to drill deeper wells in order to access the

water they require Greater depth increases construction and maintenance costs of wells In

addition larger pumps which draw more electricity are needed to raise the water Several

23

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 36: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

24 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Figure 31 Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft California 1925-1992 (Bertoldi and

Leake 1993)

million acres in the High Plains Aquifer region have already been taken out of production as

pumping costs have surpassed the value of the food grown with the water (Frederick 1995)

312 Land Subsidence

Water in an aquifer is under tremendous pressure from the weight of soil and water above

it When an aquifer is over-pumped the water that was supporting the soil above it is

removed and the structural integrity of the aquifer is reduced Without water pressure to

support it the land surface begins to settle and compress in a process called subsidence

When an aquifer collapses the pore spaces that once held water are eliminated meaning

that the storage capacity of that aquifer is lost forever Subsidence can appear as a small

local collapse or as broad regional lowering of the landrsquos surface height (USGS 1995)

Figure 31 illustrates the dramatic affect land subsidence can have This photo taken

in California shows the position of the land surface in 1925 1955 and 1977 In 1977

the regionrsquos farmers stopped using groundwater and instead switched to surface water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 37: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 25

However during a drought between 1987 and 1992 farmers again began using groundwater

and again the land surface began to drop (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

Land subsidence causes substantial damage to structures such as buildings roads and

buried pipes Additionally subsidence can disrupt water conveyance structures leading to

poor drainage and possible flooding The National Research Council estimates the annual

costs due to increased flooding and structural damage from land subsidence to be in excess

of $125 million This total does not include the estimated loss of property value due to

subsidence or related increases in farm operating costs According to USGS a more realistic

estimate would be closer to $400 million a year (Bertoldi and Leake 1993)

313 Depletion of Surface Water

Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamflow and maintaining wet-

lands in times of low precipitation On average about 40 percent of the river flow na-

tionwide depends on groundwater (Phillips 2001) Over-pumping of aquifers can lead to

lowered stream and lake levels and to dessication of wetlands These impacts will be further

explored in the surface water depletion section

314 Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers resulting in higher

filtration costs for agricultural as well as rural uses The concentration of mineral salts

in depleted aquifers can render the groundwater useless for many water supply purposes

Federal drinking-water standards require that total dissolved solids not exceed 500 parts

per million Agriculture also has specific limits although these vary based on the salinity

tolerance of different crops In general a salinity level of greater than 1000 ppm renders

water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986)

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 38: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

26 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

32 Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Often the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe flow

available For example the maximum allowable diversion of flow in the Colorado River is set

at 75 million acre-feet per year which is split between seven states Because the Colorado

is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack flow in the river can fluctuate significantly

between wet periods and drought In recent drought years the river has diminished to

little more than a trickle before reaching its delta and emptying into the Pacific Ocean

(CRWUA 2001)

321 Habitat Loss

Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include

threatened or endangered species A minimum flow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat

which in the case of the Pacific Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses The

Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamflow in the

Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998) Surface flow diversions

in the Columbia basin have forced the US Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly

$10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream flow augmentation

(USFWS 2001)

322 Decreased Aquifer Recharge

In areas of low groundwater tables precipitation-fed lakes and streams lose water into their

aquifers When surface water is diverted for alternate uses the quantity of water available

for natural aquifer recharge decreases With less water entering the aquifer the water table

in the aquifer is likely to fall leading to the problems associated with groundwater overdraft

(USGS 1995)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 39: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 27

323 Municipal Supply Problems

Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies like Phoenix and Tucson

often suffer ill effects when new water sources are introduced The physical and chemical

composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems For example

when Tucson first introduced water from the Central Arizona Project canal consumers

reported pipe damage water heaters and evaporative cooler clogging skin rashes and

aquarium and pool damage (Gelt et al 1998)

324 Pollution Concentration

In times of depleted surface flow nutrient contributions from both pointsource and non-

pointsource polluters are increased relative to streamflow The decreased dilution of nutri-

ents results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms dissolved oxygen depletion and other

negative effects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001) Higher nutrient concentrations

also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water sys-

tems

33 Second-Order Impacts

331 Increasing Water Price

The commodity of water is subject to the economic law of supply and demand As water

becomes more scarce its price will increase Already some farmers have found it to be

more profitable to sell their water rights than to farm their land (Vaux Jr 1990) Population

growth accelerates water scarcity by increasing demand as has been seen in Arizona one of

the most rapidly growing and water-critical states (Gelt et al 1998) The director of Water

Programs at the US Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of

scarcity and uncertainty thusly

Now we come to the $64000 question or should I say the $64 billion or $164

billion question No one really knows how much water will cost But if we

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 40: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

28 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

continue our past practices it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions

(Goldberg 1994)

332 Loss of Farm Production

In 1980 cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17

Western States accounted for approximately $593 billion or about 43 percent of the income

derived from farming in the United States (OTA 1983) In particular the United States

is dependent on the West to provide certain crops including 85 of the national demand

for wheat barley and sorghum (OTA 1983) If farmers in western states continue to sell

their water rights and take cropland out of production the United States will be losing an

important segment of food supply The country will increasingly be reliant upon imported

foodstuffs to meet its demand

333 Changes to Animal Agriculture

Scarcity of water will inflate grain prices which will affect stakeholders that depend on

grain availability including animal agriculture producers The costs of many foods will rise

with meat production perhaps the most significantly affected Cattle production requires 7

kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight pork and poultry are slightly more efficient

at 4 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively (Brown 2001) Alternative sources of protein such as

aquaculture or plant-based meat substitutes may become more commonplace

334 Failure of Local Economies

Water transfers due to rising costs and facilitated water rights trading almost always results

in a net reduction of water available to agriculture While economic water use efficiency is

increased on a sate-wide or nation-wide basis the burdens of water transfers typically fall

solely on small rural communities In La Paz County Arizona a community impacted by

a net loss of water rights to large municipal areas nearly all individuals agreed with the

statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 41: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 29

a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Gollehon 1999) The unemployment rate of

the county jumped 14 as a direct result of water transfers

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 42: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

30 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 43: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Chapter 4

Technologies

Having described and quantified in preceding chapters the water resource problems to which

agriculture contributes in the United States this report next examines the technology tools

available for alleviating these problems The technologies are organized in terms of the

problem areas agricultural water sources uses and discharges

41 Water Sources Increasing Quantity

411 Desalination

One way to create new water resources is to reclaim water located in brackish aquifers or the

ocean by way of desalination The technology is available but costly Table 41 summarizes

the costs of desalination for various sources Over 500 desalination plants mostly located in

California Florida Texas and Arizona produce approximately 12 percent of the worldwide

output of desalinated water (CCC 1993)

Since farmers currently pay only about $70 per acre-foot of water the high cost of desali-

nation makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology However

in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency

shortages

Beyond the issue of cost desalination has a number of other problems

31

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 44: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

32 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Desalination Source Capital Cost ($) Product Cost ($acft)

Seawater 20300000 1300

Brackish groundwater 7000000ndash10000000 440mdash500

Municipal wastewater (excludes cost

of pretreatment and distribution)

6400000 540

Table 41 The typical costs of desalination 1992 dollars (CCC 1993)

bull Facilities must be constructed near the coasts which tend to be sensitive environ-

mental areas Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a

desalination plant

bull Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water this highly

concentrated brine requires specialized disposal

bull Desalination is a very energy intensive process For example before the Santa Barbara

reverse-osmosis plant shut down it used about 6600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot

of water produced In states already suffering from energy crises these high electricity

demands make desalination a less attractive alternative (CCC 1993)

412 Dams and Reservoirs

Currently the United States has more than 75000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage

capacity of about 860 million acre-feet While these bodies of water also provide recre-

ational and power-generation uses many are primarily intended as water storage devices

By accommodating seasonal variations in streamflow reservoirs allow water resource ad-

ministrators to plan for the average downstream flow rate Despite their general utility

there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs

bull Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used

(OTA 1983)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 45: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 33

bull Sedimentation the deposition of eroded rock is dropping reservoir capacity by about

15 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983)

bull Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and

habitats

bull There is growing environmental resistance to dams focused on their negative effects

to animal habitats and migration patterns

bull Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs A study of

US river basins suggests that the Lower Colorado the Upper Colorado and the Rio

Grande have already reached this point (OTA 1983)

Although reservoirs and dams have helped solve national water needs in the past these

points help explain why they may not be the best solution for the future (Frederick 1995)

413 Water Reuse

Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of

water recycling

bull Direct potable reuse

bull Direct non-potable reuse

bull Indirect potable and non-potable reuse

These technologies all apply mainly to municipal users They are treated as potential

solutions to agricultural problems in situations where high agricultural water use reduces

the supply available for municipalities

Direct potable reuse

The option of direct potable reuse is the most technically demanding and societally con-

tentious In direct potable reuse the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 46: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

34 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant Because of the seemingly closed-

loop cycle this process achieves it is often called ldquotoilet-to-taprdquo (WRA 2001) However a

number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology

bull Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more ex-

tensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant Typically

wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers di-

rectly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chem-

ical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and

Dworkin 1978)

bull Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of

wastewater Although many communities already practice ldquoindirect potable reuserdquo

because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalityrsquos wastew-

ater plant the idea of direct reuse is often more upsetting Citizen group reactions

in areas where direct potable reuse has been proposed tend to be strongly negative

(WRA 2001)

bull While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general igno-

rance of the realities of water treatment direct potable reuse does suffer some serious

questions regarding health and hygiene The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies

of water in traditional water treatment plays a significant role in cleaning the water

A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concen-

trating pollutants over time While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely

monitored there are other potential problem chemicals whose effects are unknown

For example many medications are excreted from the body and are detectable in

wastewater Such chemicals are not on the list of monitored pollutants but would

certainly be present in recycled wastewater (NRC 1998)

In summary direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling and is

at present used only in water-critical situations While toilet-to-tap systems do work in

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 47: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 35

theory and some pilot plants are presently being monitored they are generally an option

of last resort

Direct Non-potable Reuse

This option requires a similar level of treatment as traditional wastewater prior to discharge

into receiving bodies of water The technology involved is simply a second set of water pipes

that carry treated wastewater back to large-volume irrigators Golf courses office parks

and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated

wastewater without measurable ill effects (Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

While it is possible for all domestic irrigators to switch to recycled wastewater for their

home irrigation the cost of running new non-potable water lines to individual residences

is thought to be prohibitive Cities with non-potable reuse typically sell wastewater to a

small number of large-volume users such as those previously mentioned The benefits of

non-potable reuse include minimizing the cost of drinking water treatment by decreasing the

demand and increasing the beauty of the community with a new source of irrigation water

Additionally some recycled water infiltrates into the groundwater helping to prevent the

damage associated with falling groundwater tables (WRA 2001)

One negative aspect of direct non-potable reuse is the accumulation of byproducts over

time in the irrigated soil If the recycled wastewater has a non-zero concentration of salts or

other chemicals those chemicals may accumulate over time where the water is applied Usu-

ally physical and biological processes in the soil offset this concern unless the concentration

of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978)

Another negative effect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and non-

potable water piping Mixing up potable and non-potable water pipes is a concern when

users of recycled water include ordinary residences Industrial users typically do not suffer

such problems but small children may drink from a home faucet that is intended solely

for irrigation water Because treated wastewater is not devoid of pathogens and harmful

chemicals the consequences of ingestion can be severe (NRC 1998)

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 48: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

36 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse ldquoAquifer Rechargerdquo

These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the

same Also known as ldquoaquifer rechargerdquo the two main technologies involved are reservoir

infiltration and groundwater injection Both methods of aquifer recharge aim to replace

groundwater supplies with treated wastewater In a region that experiences groundwater

depletion through pumping for irrigation or municipal use this option is especially desirable

Prior to recharge wastewater is treated to a higher degree than is required for surface

water discharge but not to finished drinking water standards The water is then piped to

large basins where it is allowed to infiltrate into the ground In regions with aquifers that

have barriers to surface recharge or where space for reservoirs is too expensive the water

is pumped down into the aquifer through injection wells While they are more energetically

expensive injection wells take up less space and can sometimes recharge greater quantities

of water than surface basins (WRA 2001)

Aquifer recharge protects against saltwater intrusion in coastal regions and helps to

prevent subsidence wherever it is employed There is typically a residence time of 5 years or

more between injection and re-withdrawal for potable or non-potable use during which time

natural physical and biological processes help clean the water of pathogens and chemicals

(NRC 1998)

42 Water Uses Improving Efficiency

The second part of the agricultural water cycle as outlined in Chapter Two is the use

phase If the efficiency of use is increased the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can

be decreased Two technological areas where efficiency gains are possible are irrigation and

bioengineering of crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 49: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 37

Irrigation Method Advantages Disadvantages

Surge Simple low setup costs low

energy

Tendency to over-irrigate

non-uniform distribution

Sprinkle Easier to control High initial costs

Drip High water efficiency high fre-

quency precise

High initial costs requires ex-

pert management prone to

clogging

Table 42 Irrigation methods

421 Irrigation

The main problem with irrigation is its low efficiency Table 42 summarizes the characteris-

tics of the irrigation methods described in this section generally higher efficiency methods

cost more and require more expertise Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer re-

gion have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers low-energy precision application

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise efficiencies from 60 (the

average efficiency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95 Farmers in the studies also

saw crop yields increase 10-15 These benefits resulted from reduced evaporation runoff

and seepage (Postel 1999 187)

Surface

Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation Also called

gravity irrigation or field flooding surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a field to

distribute water Water is released at the head of a sloping field and is allowed to flow to

the other end

The efficiency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the

slope of the field The soil serves two roles the first is distribution to convey the water to

other parts of the field and the second is infiltration the delivery of the water to the plant

roots Variations in the soilrsquos infiltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 50: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

38 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a field in order to give adequate coverage

to the whole field (Crow 2000)

Surface irrigation systems have low energy requirements since most of the work is done

by gravity The energy required for surface irrigation is the energy needed to pump the

water to the distribution unit Initial setup costs for surface irrigation are generally low

Through terracing surface irrigation can be applied to sloping land as well though the

construction and maintenance of terraces requires added labor expense (Hillel 1987)

Furrow

In furrow irrigation the surface of the soil is shaped into rows of ldquofurrowsrdquo U or V-

shaped banks in the soil Furrows are separated with ridges upon which crops are planted

Depending on the size of ridges only about half of the surface is covered with water resulting

in less loss due to evaporation Furrows are generally sloped to promote gravity-driven water

distribution

The application and distribution of water for furrow systems is very similar to surface

irrigation Water partially flows downward under the furrows themselves and sideways

into the ridges However because there is no water flowing over the ridges themselves

evaporation of the water leads to saline deposits on the ridges Salination can hinder seed

germination and reduce crop growth For this reason furrow irrigation is often rotated with

other forms to facilitate leaching and removal of salt accumulations (Hillel 1987)

Surge

Surge irrigation is a modification to surface and furrow irrigation systems Instead of

flooding a field continuously the water is released in surges as the name implies This

method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves The first pulse of

water creates a layer of mud that ldquosealsrdquo the soil allowing subsequent pulses to continue

down the field more quickly and uniformly Adding surge valves to existing systems has the

potential to increase efficiency by about 20 (Postel 1999 187)

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 51: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 39

Sprinkle

Sprinkle irrigation uses a spray or jet created by expelling water from a nozzle The spray is

broken up into droplets and acts like a simulated rainfall of controlled frequency intensity

duration and droplet size In sprinkle irrigation soil application is not the method of

conveyingdistributing water to the field Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at

rates that do not exceed the soilrsquos rate of infiltration in order to prevent surface runoff

Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils The unifor-

mity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than

the soil type These systems are affected by wind and depending on the size of droplets

and the spray trajectory uniform distribution may be limited Additionally when water

applied by the sprinkler evaporates on a crop leaf it may deposit salts that cause leaf scorch

(Hillel 1987)

Sprinkle systems have high initial costs and maintenance requirements They also use

high operating pressures which is a large energy requirement However their ability to

work on most types of soil makes them desirable in a number of situations

Drip

Drip irrigation is a slower and more localized application of water Drip heads are carefully

placed precisely where plants need water Water is always released below the infiltration

rate of the soil so the drip method is very efficient losing little water to evaporation Water

is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000)

Drip irrigation offers a high degree of precision and control of water application Little

energy is required because the transmission system uses low water pressures However drip

irrigation systems are highly susceptible to clogging by suspended particles and biological

agents Water in drip irrigation systems must be filtered and there is a relatively high

maintenance cost in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987)

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 52: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

40 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

422 Water-Thrifty Crops

Water lost through inefficiencies in irrigation is one area in which improvements are possible

Another option is to decrease the baseline amount of water that crops require for growth

as explored in Chapter 2 Some biotechnology companies are looking to do just that by

modifying stomata in the plant leaves in the hopes of reducing transpiration (water loss

through evaporation) (Postel 1999) Further research in this area could be fruitful

43 Water Discharge Reducing Pollution

The final phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge in which water returns by

runoff or seepage to the larger hydrologic cycle As described in Chapter Two this phase

is a problem inasmuch as the discharges carry pollutants like nitrates and pesticides

Since agriculture is a non-pointsource polluter its output generally cannot be collected

and treated Therefore those solutions typically applied to industrial and municipal pol-

luters are not useful in an agricultural setting Some agricultural pollution problems can

be mitigated by the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) which are the pri-

mary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution However most BMPs are

not technology-based in the traditional sense of ldquotechnologyrdquo BMPs include tilling fields

less frequently or planting alternating rows of corn and beans or placing ditches where sed-

iment will collect rather than run off into streams (Gale Line Osmond Coffey Spooner

Arnold Hoban and Wimberley 1993)

The more traditional technological options available to the farmer focus on requiring less

pesticides Crops can be genetically engineered to require fewer pesticides and new pesti-

cides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly A spokesman for Novartis

a biochemicals company asserts that ldquo[b]y just isolating the active isomer we have been

able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50 and

achieve the same fungicidal effectrdquo (Samo 1997) However some bioengineered products

may lead to increased pesticide applications for instance Monsantorsquos ldquoRoundup Readyrdquo

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 53: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 41

line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide effectively raising the maximum

amount that can be applied to a field (Altieri and Rosset 1999)

Bioengineering options are generally areas for future research there is presently no clear

technological solution to the issues of polluted agricultural discharges

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 54: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

42 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 55: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Chapter 5

Priority Policy Options

To summarize before proceeding with policy options this technology assessment began

with a description of the importance of agriculture to the future of water resources in the

United States After framing the problem specific agricultural water issues were discussed

in light of their documented impacts Further analysis of the general impacts associated

with agricultural water demand illustrated the critical need for national policy attention

Potential technology tools available to help manage water resource availability use and

discharge were discussed along with their anticipated impacts

51 Policy Tools

This chapter first outlines the policy tools available to Congress in order to provide context

for the exploration of policy options Brief descriptions of regulatory subsidy-based and

informational policy tools are presented After introducing the tools a variety of specific

policy options that utilize those tools are explored along with their potential impacts

43

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 56: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

44 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

511 Regulatory Tools

Permitting

Congress has traditionally delegated the power of permit issuance to a number of regulatory

agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency

The mandate for those agencies rests however on the strength of the legislation they are

charged with executing such as the 1972 Clean Water Act or 1987 Water Quality Act

Congress can help manage agricultural water impacts by implementing new environmental

legislation calling for any one of a variety of nationwide agricultural permitting systems

Specific options for such legislation will be explored later in this chapter

Enforcement

In certain cases the existing laws aimed at limiting agricultural water impacts are so poorly

enforced as to be ineffective Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by

the resources to provide effective enforcement In addition Congressionally-mandated peri-

odic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase efficiency by revealing

weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system

Market Creation

Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces effect positive changes is an

increasingly popular legislative option Such markets are possible in the areas of agricultural

water use and non-pointsource discharge For example water markets are institutional

frameworks for the exchange of water use rights If society refuses to incur the costs of

significant new water storage and conveyance facilities water markets are one way to manage

water demands within the existing supply system Even if new storage and conveyance

infrastructure is created water markets can help allocate water in an economically efficient

manner Additionally effluent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce

water quality impacts and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 57: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 45

512 Subsidy Tools

Research Funding

The federal government provides substantial funding for research grants to a number of

agencies including the National Science Foundation the Department of Agriculture and

the Environmental Protection Agency The use of such funding is largely discretionary

depending on the focus of the particular agency A Congressional push to increase research

efforts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be effective in

focusing agency funding toward the areas outlined in this technology assessment

Producer Payments

Agricultural producers receive almost 75 billion dollars annually in farm subsidies from the

federal government A portion of this money is earmarked specifically for irrigation water

reducing the incentive for producers to adopt better water-management practices Some

subsidies go to the production of surplus crops which then must be bought back from the

producers as price supports A re-examination of the funding level and intended effects of

producer payments can help provide for national water use efficiency

Tax Breaks and Business Incentives

The government can also effect positive change in water management indirectly by providing

financial incentives to businesses By financially encouraging agricultural companies and

producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste

reduction increases in water use efficiency and pollution reduction can be expected Tax

breaks to companies that take financial risks in order to minimize negative water-related

impacts can be an effective use of federal money

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 58: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

46 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

513 Informational Tools

Technical Advice and Oversight

The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and oper-

ation of successful water-management initiatives For example the water markets which

presently exist in the western states lack federal oversight This situation has prevented

some stakeholders from participating fully in the decision-making process that approves

water right transfers Federal officials can aid in the approval process by taking into ac-

count the larger societal effects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state

officials Additionally technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse

of information for potential water-right or effluent-quota transfers helping to maximize

market efficiency

Educational Programs

A ten-year USDAUSEPA study into the effectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource

pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-effective way to decrease pollutant

levels A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from

voluntarily implementing these practices Significant quantifiable drops in non pointsource

pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through educa-

tion The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a

potentially effective information-based policy available to the Congress

52 Policy Options

The following priority policy options emerged from a synthesis of the information contained

in preceding chapters Water resource policy formulation requires a thorough understanding

of the magnitude of agricultural water impacts and the potential for encouraging techno-

logical or non-technological solutions The options listed below explore the ways in which

Congress can use policy tools to implement these solutions thus providing for improved

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 59: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 47

water resource sustainability The policies are organized according to the type of water

resource problem they most directly address Each policy option is presented along with

its anticipated first-order and potential higher-order impacts

521 Quality-Focused Policies

Require permits for non-pointsource discharges

The US Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a

ldquocomprehensive and all-compassingrdquo framework for water pollution regulation irrespective

of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource EPA agrees that total maxi-

mum daily load (TMDL) permits are necessary to reduce the impact of non-pointsource

pollution Additionally EPA has performed a cost analysis which suggests that the costs

of implementing non-pointsource permitting and monitoring will largely be offset by the

economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds

(Fox 2000) Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive effects associated

with reduced nutrient loads such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level manage-

ment a method of water quality planning that is recommended by numerous studies The

program will require implementation of BMPs along with the cost assistance and education

that is necessary to effect proper BMP introduction (Gale et al 1993) The establishment

of TMDLs is likely to be contentious as the requirements will fall more heavily on some

kinds of farms than others (EPA 1999)

Regulate pointsource animal agriculture under the Clean Water Act

Animal agriculture operations in the United States such as dairy feed lots and hog farms

are not allowed to discharge into surface water The resulting practice of land-application

of waste leads to leaching of nutrients which ultimately end up in ground and surface water

(Sutton and Joern 2001) By permitting animal operations under the regulations of the

Clean Water Act land application of concentrated waste will decrease ultimately reducing

nutrient contamination of ground and surface water The cost of treating wastewater for

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 60: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

48 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

discharge under CWA regulations is higher than treating wastewater for land application

which will raise the price of some agricultural products (Williams 2001) The higher cost

of doing business will drive animal production out of the United States in cases where the

cost of shipping is less than the cost of compliance with regulations However the large

quantity of existing farm infrastructure may prevent farms from relocating in the short

term effectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997)

Legalize effluent trading among permit holders

Effluent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a

flexible and market-driven manner By allowing the buying and selling of effluent dis-

charge capacity an effluent market system is inherently more efficient than other systems

founded on simple regulation Effluent markets that are already in place have applied all the

progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems which demand reduced total emis-

sions (Inc 2001) Furthermore a market system will reduce the time and effort needed to

inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than

summing the outputs from specific pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001)

The effluent market will allow companies and industries that are unable to reduce their

emissions below requirements to remain in business albeit at an economic disadvantage

while still reducing the total area-wide emissions However because some emitters may

purchase permits for increased discharge pollution may increase in localized regions

522 Quantity-Focused Policies

Provide aid to develop a framework for water markets

While market-driven water transfers are presently legal and usually subject to the approval

of state authorities most states do not have an established process by which to consider

the impacts of water transfers to the broader society There is a need for informational and

monetary assistance to effect a more just process of rights trading since the present system

only addresses the concerns of ldquofirst-orderrdquo stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 61: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 49

of water rights (Gollehon 1999) Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall

economic efficiency is improved on a state-wide level with a net loss of water available

for agricultural use However these studies note that economic costs and benefits fall on

different populations within the state Income loss is typically concentrated within sub-

county areas with some small farming communities severely impacted (Carter et al 2000)

Long lead times of notice prior to an actual water transfer seem to be one of the few methods

of mitigating the suffering of small farming communities In La Paz County Arizona where

water market transfers led to a 14 unemployment increase in a single year virtually all

residents responded affirmatively to the statement ldquoThe losses to the community associated

with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensatedrdquo (Charney

and Woodward 1990)

Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies

One way to offset the municipal supply-shortage caused by agricultural water use is to

aid municipalities with the construction of water storage and reuse infrastructure Aquifer

recharge programs underway in California have shown the ability to provide a long-term

renewable water supply (WRA 2001) Aquifer recharge and wastewater reuse are less viable

as alternatives in rural areas because of the high cost of infrastructure Funding of these

projects in water-critical regions similar to wastewater infrastructure funding provided by

Congress in the 1950s and 1960s will allow for the completion of projects that are too

expensive to depend solely on local funding (Baumann and Dworkin 1978) Use of taxpayer

money to assist a select area of the country may be objectionable to some but these

municipal storage and reuse projects will ease the demand on non-local sources minimizing

the diversion of surface water and the overdraft of groundwater (NRC 1998) However

this reduced demand may allow poor agricultural water use practices to continue since the

overall scarcity of water will be less dire

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 62: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

50 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Enforce existing groundwater pumping limits

The United States can be more strict in enforcing groundwater pumping limits established

in the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982 Federal law outlined in the RRA only

allotted federally subsidized irrigation water to farms of 960 acres or less One report found

that Californiarsquos large farms have been consistently violating acreage limits by presenting

themselves as multiple small farms (Villarejo and Redmon 1989) The study found that

after the RRA was passed 49 of the land in Californiarsquos Westlands Water District were

still controlled by only 50 different operations resulting in an estimated average farm size of

1312 acres Successful enforcement of groundwater pumping limits would mean that only

farms that actually meet size requirements would receive water subsidizes Large farming

operations would not be allowed to bypass the RRA by ldquotechnicallyrdquo decreasing the size of

their farm on paper Large farms would have to pay full price for the water they withdraw

giving smaller-scale farms a competitive edge Smaller farm sizes have an added benefit of

improving social conditions in the rural west Researchers have shown that smaller farm

sizes are accompanied by better social conditions in the communities surrounding the farm

(Villarejo and Redmon 1989)

Alter current irrigation subsidies

Subsidies for irrigation in the past 100 years may be the most substantial contribution

to present groundwater scarcity issues Certainly federal irrigation subsidies are at least

the historical proximate if not ultimate cause of some important water problems in the

western United States (Hartmann and Goldstein 1994) Interior Department economists

have estimated that 38 of irrigation subsidies ($800 million) go toward the irrigation of

ldquosurplusrdquo cropsmdashcrops that the US Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not

to grow Payments for surplus crops average $15 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven

2001) Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $23 billion per year on irrigation-

related subsidies That total does not take into account the federal money required to assist

with alternate municipal water supplies or money to relieve municipal damage such as land

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 63: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 51

subsidence caused by aquifer over-pumping Reducing or eliminating irrigation subsidies

will result in a shift to the production of water-thrifty more highly-valued crops with

decreasing production of water-inefficient cereal crops Eliminating subsidies would also

drive many farmers out of business potentially leading to the failure of local economies

(Gollehon 1999)

Promote trade agreements which result in virtual water importation

When a product is imported or exported the water that was used to create the product

is carried along with it in a sense This concept is called ldquovirtual waterrdquo Water-poor

countries can reduce their agricultural water use by choosing to import crops that require

the most water to produce (Bouwer 2000) As water becomes more scarce in the United

States the crops production will gradually be forced to shift away from water-intensive

crops such as alfalfa The production of similar crops will shift to water-rich nations like

Canada (Allan 1997) By seeking to establish virtual-water importation now Congress

can ease the groundwater overdraft and surface diversion problems found mainly in the

Southwest The cost of importing grain will result in increased food prices and some

grain-producing farmers will be forced out of business (Bouwer 2000)

523 Comprehensive Policies

Implement farm-assist programs for BMP education and adoption

A 10-year study performed under the Rural Clean Water Program found that agricultural

producers most often fail to implement best management practices (BMPs) because they

lack information on the relative costs and benefits of BMPs (Gale et al 1993) When

agricultural extension agents worked with the producers to demonstrate the need for BMPs

most producers agreed to voluntarily implement the practices However it was found

to be crucial that federal or state money be available to defer the costs associated with

implementing technology-based BMPs (EPA 2001a) Producer education will result in

pollution-reduction goals being ldquointernalizedrdquo by producers which will lead to producers

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 64: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

52 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

taking a more proactive role in pollution control The governmental assistance in defraying

implementation expenses will help prevent costs from being passed along to consumers and

will build positive relationships between producers and the agricultural extension agents

who seek to help them manage their operations (Council 2000)

Review the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

At present some farms are inspected on a regular basis by the EPA and one or more

state-level bureaus Other farms may experience a lapse between inspections of as much

as several years (Brawdy 1998) This variation in inspection frequency leads some farm-

ers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution Often the discharges are unintentional but

in all cases the farms operate without suffering the consequences of breaching the stated

regulations It is presumed that a review of present enforcement effectiveness will show

that there are several potential ways in which the current permitting and review process

could be improved (FAO 2001) After making the changes identified in the review it will

be possible for government agencies on different levels (ie state-level and national level)

to pool their resources eliminate the duplication of work and effectively inspect all agri-

cultural producers (NPS 1999) This increased efficiency in inspection will help reduce the

number of discharge violations in a given area Fostering cooperation between producers

and multiple government agencies will also facilitate the development and distribution of

new techniques designed to reduce agricultural discharges Finally the government will

have increased potential for collecting revenue since fines can be collected in fairness once

all producers are being regularly inspected

Support agricultural water-related research

Research into agricultural technologies has yielded several recent developments for both

waste treatment and desalinationpurification (USBR 2001) Should research funding be

increased the pace of new developments is similarly expected to increase Results may

include decreased costs of waste treatment new methods for aquifer recharge or more

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 65: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 53

energy-efficient desalination technologies Research funding increases would give policy

makers new and better tools to address water quality and quantity issues in the United

States

Funding for water resource planning is also in need of augmentation This funding has

historically been misguided in two ways Typically money has been made available for only

one level of government to study the problem rather than allow for studies at different

scales (ie basin-wide state-wide and nation-wide) Additionally monies are usually set

aside to look at a specific water resource such as groundwater rather than to consider the

interrelated nature of the water resources in any given watershed (ASCE 2001) The funding

of more comprehensive studies such as this one is crucial if the nation is to successfully

manage future water demands

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 66: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

54 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 67: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Bibliography

Allan J A 1997 lsquoVirtual waterrsquo A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies SOAS

Water Issues Study Group Occasional Papers httpwwwciaonetorgwpsaln02

Altieri M A and Rosset P 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security protect the

environment and reduce poverty in the developing world AgBioForum 2(3) httpwwwagbioforum

orgvol2no34altierihtm

ASCE 2001 Policy statements American Society of Civil Engineers httpwwwasceorgnews

policy-publiccfm

Aspelin A L and Grube A H 1999 Pesticide industry sales and usage 1996 and 1997 market estimates

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Baumann D D and Dworkin D M (eds) 1978 Planning for water reuse Maaroufa Press Chicago

Bertoldi and Leake 1993 Land subsidence from ground-water pumping United States Geological Service

waterwrusgsgovsubsidencels_3html

Bouwer H 2000 Integrated water management Emerging issues and challenges Journal of Agricultural

Water Management 45(1) 217ndash228

Brawdy B 1998 The Yakima a river wasted State doing little to ensure dairy animals arenrsquot polluting

river httpwwwtri-cityheraldcomyakimaday3story3html

Brown L R 2001 How water scarcity will shape the new century Water Science and Technology 43(4) 17ndash

22

Buddemeier R W et al 2000 An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer Kansas Geological Survey

httpwwwkgsukanseduHighPlainsatlasindexhtml

Carter R H Tschakert P and Morehouse B J 2000 Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwestrsquos

urban water sector to climate variability Case studies in Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet

Earth University of Tucson Arizona CLIMAS Report Series CL1-00 httpwwwispearizonaedu

climasreportseriesindexhtml

55

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 68: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

56 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

CCC 1993 Seawater desalination in California California Coastal Commission httpwwwcoastalca

govwebdesalrptdtitlehtmlTOCDesalination

Charney A H and Woodward G C 1990 Socioeconomic impacts of water farming on rural areas of

origin in Arizona American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(5) 1193ndash99

Congress U 2001 High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act 107th United States Congress S

1538 IS

Council C B 2000 Best funding practices for watershed management httpcerescagovbiodiv

TextOtherWwgpdf

Crow D 2000 Ancient irrigation httpwww-geologyucdavisedu~GEL115115CH17oldirrigation

html

CRWUA 2001 Arizona at a glance Colorado river profile Colorado River Water Users Association

httpcrwuamwddstcausazcrwua_azhtm

Edwards C and DeHaven T 2001 Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill

Cato Institute Briefing Paper 70 wwwcatoorgpubsbriefsbp70pdf

EPA 1994 Fact sheet for 1994 United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 1999 Proposed regulatory revisions to the total maximum daily program United States Environmental

Protection Agency Office of Water Document 800-F-99-002 httpwwwepagovowowtmdltmdlfs

html

EPA 2001a A Guidebook of Financial Tools Section 6 Tools for Lowering Costs United States En-

vironmental Protection Agency Environmental Finance Program httpwwwepagovefinpage

guidbk98gbk6htm

EPA 2001b Non-point source program United States Environmental Protection Agency httpwwwepa

govregion4waternps

FAO 2001 Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing Improving regulatory frame-

works United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization httpwwwfaoorgwaicentfaoinfo

agricultagsAGSMlegalchap_6pdf

Fox J C 2000 Testimony of J Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for water US Environmental

Protection Agency httpwwwsenategov~epwfox_0518htm

Frederick K D 1995 Americarsquos water supply Status and prospects for the future Consequences 1(1)

Gale J Line D Osmond D Coffey S Spooner J Arnold J Hoban T and Wimberley R 1993

Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program United States Environmental Protection

Agency httph2osparcwqncsueduinforcwpindexhtml EPA-841-R-93-005

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 69: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 57

Gelt J Henderson J Seasholes K Tellman B and Woodard G 1998 Water in the Tucson area

Seeking sustainability Water Resources Research Center College of Agriculture University of Arizona

httpagarizonaeduAZWATERpublicationssustainabilityreport_htmlcoverhtml

Gleik P H 2000 The Worldrsquos Water 2000-2001 Island Press Washington DC

Goldberg R 1994 Experts try to predict the future cost of water Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Environmental Issues Water Our Next Crisis Academy of Natural Sciences www

acnatsciorgerdeafuture_COWhtml

Gollehon N R 1999 Water markets Implications for rural areas of the West Rural Development Per-

spectives 14(2)

Hartmann J R and Goldstein J H 1994 Western riparian wetlands The impact of federal programs on

wetlands httpwwwdoigovoepcwetlands2v2ch12html

Hetzel G 1996 Safe use of pesticides in agriculture Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number

442-036 httpwwwextvtedupubssafety442-036442-036html

Hillel D 1987 The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation World Bank Washington DC

IEE 2001 Small watersheds network Nutrients Institute for Ecological Economics University of Maryland

httpieeumceseduAVEDUSWNModulesM2html

Inc L A 2001 The cleaner and greener program Emission trading 101 httpwwwcleanerandgreener

orgenvironmentemissiontradinghtm

Kranz W L Hay D R and Goeke J W 1993 Understanding groundwater Cooperative Extension

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of NebraskandashLincoln httpwwwianr

unledupubsWaterg1128htm

Leonard R 1986 Agriculture and groundwater quality Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeast-

ern Groundwater Issues pp 125ndash144

McGuire V L Stanton C P and Fischer B C 1999 Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer 1980-

1996 United States Geological Survey httpnewaterusgsgovhighplainshp96_web_report

hp96_factsheethtm

Murray P (ed) 1995 Water Sources Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations second edn

American Water Works Association Denver

NPS 1999 Idaho dairymenrsquos pledge to clean up their act pays off Nonpoint Source News-Notes Issue 57

NRC 1998 Issues in potable reuse The viability of augmenting drinking-water supplies with reclaimed

water National Research Council httpwwwnapedubooks0309064163htmlindexhtml

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 70: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

58 Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

OrsquoDonnell M and Rademaekers J 1997 Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-

1990 United States Geological Survey httpgeochangeerusgsgovswimpactshydrology

water_use

OTA 1983 Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in US aridsemiarid lands United States

Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OTA 1995 Environmental policy tools United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment

OrsquoToole Jr L J 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht chapter 12 13

OTT 2001 Technologies affecting groundwater United States Office of Techology Transfer

Phillips N 2001 Groundwater amp surface water Understanding the interaction Conservation Technology

Information Center wwwcticpurdueeduKYWBrochuresGroundSurfacehtml

Pimental D e a 1997 Water resources Agriculture the environment and society BioScience 47(2) 97ndash

106

Postel S 1985 Conserving Water The Untapped Alternative Worldwatch Institute Washington DC

Postel S 1999 Pillar of Sand Can the Irrigation Miracle Last WW Norton and Company New York

RECLAIM 2001 Reclaim Regional clean air market (home page) httpwwwaqmdgovreclaim

reclaimhtml

Rhodes S L and Wheeler S E 1996 Rural electrification and irrigation in the US High Plains Journal

of Rural Studies 12(3) 311ndash317

Samo W 1997 Pesticides and agriculture httpwwwpmacnetsamohtm

Schrama G J (ed) 1998 Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dordrecht

Simon B M 1998 Federal acquisition of water through voluntary transactions for environmental purposes

Contemporary Economic Policy pp 422ndash32

Stakhiv E Z 1998 Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management Water

Policy 1(2) 159ndash175

Streatfeild R 1998 Central Arizona Project pathfinder University of Arizona Law School httpwww

lawarizonaedulibraryLibraryInternetDocumentsPathfindersrstreatpathdeschtml

Sutton A L and Joern B C 2001 Land application of manure Purdue University Cooperative Extension

Service httphermesecnpurdueeducgiconvwqtestwq-16inascii

USBR 2001 Water technologies United States Bureau of Reclamation Water Treatment Engineering and

Research Group httpwwwusbrgovwatercontentc_techhtml

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies
Page 71: Managing Agricultural Water Impactswingolog.org/projects/water/water.pdfFinal Paper E497B—The Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Offered in conjunction with the Department

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts 59

USDA 1997 NAFTArsquos impact on agriculture The first 3 years United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service httpwwwersusdagovpublicationsagoutlooksep1997ao244e

pdf

USDA 1998 1998 farm amp ranch irrigation survey United States Department of Agriculture httpwww

nassusdagovcensuscensus97frisfrishtm

USFWS 2001 Fiscal year 2002 budget justifications United States Fish and Wildlife Service http

budgetfwsgovgreenbooktochtml

USGS 1990 National water-use maps United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwatuse

wumapscolorhtml

USGS 1995 Ground water studies United States Geological Survey httpwaterusgsgovwidhtml

GWhtmlHDR3

USGS 2000 A reconnaisance study of the effect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala

formation central High Plains aquifer United States Geological Service httpwebservercrusgs

govnawqahpgwfactsheetsMCMAHONFS1html

USGS 2001a Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 United States Geological Service

httpwaterusgsgovwatusepdf1995html

USGS 2001b The quality of our nationrsquos waters Nutrients and pesticides United States Geological Survey

Circular 1225 httpwaterusgsgovpubscirccirc1225

Vaux Jr H 1990 The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use American Society of Agricultural

Engineers St Joseph Michigan pp 8ndash12

Villarejo D and Redmon J 1989 Missed opportunities squandered resources Why prosperity brought

water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley httpwwwcirsincorg

Williams C M M 2001 Environmentally superior waste management technologies Animal and Poultry

Waste Management Center NCSU httpmarkascincsueduNCPorkConfwilliamshtm

WRA 2001 Home page The WateReuse Association httpwwwwatereuseorg

  • Executive Summary
    • Introduction
    • Definitions
    • Problem Statement
    • Stakeholders
    • Problem Categories
    • Technology Tools
    • Priority Policy Options
      • Problem Background
        • The Challenge of Quantification
        • Agricultural Water Sources
          • Surface Water
          • Groundwater
            • Agricultural Water Use
              • Irrigation
                • Agricultural Water Discharge
                  • Nitrates
                  • Pesticides
                    • Summary
                      • Selected Problem Impacts
                        • Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft
                          • Higher Pumping Costs
                          • Land Subsidence
                          • Depletion of Surface Water
                          • Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
                            • Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
                              • Habitat Loss
                              • Decreased Aquifer Recharge
                              • Municipal Supply Problems
                              • Pollution Concentration
                                • Second-Order Impacts
                                  • Increasing Water Price
                                  • Loss of Farm Production
                                  • Changes to Animal Agriculture
                                  • Failure of Local Economies
                                      • Technologies
                                        • Water Sources Increasing Quantity
                                          • Desalination
                                          • Dams and Reservoirs
                                          • Water Reuse
                                            • Water Uses Improving Efficiency
                                              • Irrigation
                                              • Water-Thrifty Crops
                                                • Water Discharge Reducing Pollution
                                                  • Priority Policy Options
                                                    • Policy Tools
                                                      • Regulatory Tools
                                                      • Subsidy Tools
                                                      • Informational Tools
                                                        • Policy Options
                                                          • Quality-Focused Policies
                                                          • Quantity-Focused Policies
                                                          • Comprehensive Policies