Water

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts
Final Paper E497BThe Benjamin Franklin Scholars Capstone Course Oered in conjunction with the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies
Elizabeth Covalla Industrial EngineeringPolitical Science Chethan Pandarinath Computer EngineeringScience, Technology and Society James Williams Mechanical EngineeringScience, Technology and Society Jon Williams Environmental EngineeringPhilosophy Andy Wingo Nuclear EngineeringPhysicsSpanish
Supervised by Drs. Joseph R. Herkert and Jerome P. Lavelle North Carolina State University Fall 2001
Copyright
c 2001 Elizabeth Covalla, Chethan Pandarinath, James Williams,
Jon Williams, Andy Wingo
A Typeset by the authors with the L TEX 2 Documentation System.
Abstract This technology assessment explores the degree to which agriculture aects the quality and quantity of water resources available in the United States. The magnitude of agricultural water impacts is quantied to the extent possible and selected impacts related to groundwater 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 eect agricultural water resource sustainability 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 depletion
ii
Contents
1 Executive Summary 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Priority Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 10 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 21
2 Problem Background 2.1 2.2 The Challenge of Quantication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agricultural Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Agricultural Water Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 2.4.2 Nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
iv
3 Selected Problem Impacts 3.1 Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 Higher Pumping Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depletion of Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degraded Aquifer Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 31 31 31 32 33 36 37 40 40 43 43
Impacts of Surface Water Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Habitat Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decreased Aquifer Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Municipal Supply Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pollution Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3
Second-Order Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 Increasing Water Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss of Farm Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Changes to Animal Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure of Local Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Technologies 4.1 Water Sources: Increasing Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.2 Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dams and Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Uses: Improving Eciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 4.2.2 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water-Thrifty Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3
Water Discharge: Reducing Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Priority Policy Options 5.1 Policy Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2
Regulatory Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subsidy Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informational Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44 45 46 46 47 48 51
Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 Quality-Focused Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantity-Focused Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comprehensive Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
List of Tables
2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 The agricultural water cycle: Inputs and outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water consumption by food type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The typical costs of desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irrigation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 16 32 37
vii
viii
List of Figures
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 Estimated use of water in the United States 19501990 . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquifer locations in the western United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990 irrigation withdrawals, as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals . U.S. pesticide usage in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, California, 1925-1992 . . . . . . . 10 11 14 20 24
ix
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
When the well is dry, we know the worth of water. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanac, 1746. Water is a very good servant, but it is a cruel master. C.G.D. Roberts, Adrift in America, 1891. If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over waterunless we change our approach to managing this precious and vital resource. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of the World Bank, 1995.
1.1
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
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 eectively 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 rst and higher-order impacts of potential technology and policy solutions.
1.2
Denitions
This technology assessment makes use of several terms and abbreviations. In order to be precise in the use of terms, the following denitions are provided: Sustainability - Seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Pointsource - Pollution from a geographically localized discharge. For example, a smokestack represents an atmospheric pointsource, and a sewage treatment plant represents an aquatic pointsource. Non-pointsource - Pollution from a geographically distributed discharge. For example, land application of fertilizers is a non-pointsource discharge of nitrogen and other nutrients.
Euent - Any pollution-containing discharge of water from an engineered process such as irrigation, industrial production, or municipal sewage treatment. Aquifer - A porous subterranean region saturated with groundwater. Surface water - Water available in streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Best management practices (BMPs) - Ways in which agricultural production methods can be altered to minimize negative water impacts.
1.3
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 U.S. water demand, and irrigation is the largest consumptive water use. Agricultural operations have been identied by the Environmental Protection Agency as the leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and lakes. While reliable quantication of specic water quality and quantity impacts is generally unavailable, the water resource research community agrees that the following crucial problems are directly relevant to agriculture: Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate. Groundwater overpumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage capacity. Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration. Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality degradation. Articially low water prices for agriculture promote water use ineciency.
Present United States water policies are insucient to ensure future water supply security. This technology assessment explores the options available to the federal government to eect a move toward sustainable agricultural water management, in light of the problems listed above.
1.4
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 classied into groups that can be expected to share similar goals regarding agricultural water resource policies. The rights-holders most directly aected by the issues examined in this report are: Agricultural producers and related industries - Farmers and the industries who supply farm-related products are primary stakeholders. Producers directly inuence water resources through agricultural withdrawal, use, and discharge. Municipal water users - The second-largest water demand after agriculture is municipalities. Clean drinking water is distributed to residences as well as industrial operations. Municipalities often compete directly with agriculture in water-scarce regions. 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. 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.
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 U.S. policy.
U.S. 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 aect other nations.
1.5
Problem Categories
The problems associated with agricultural water use are arranged in this technology assessment 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 especially important rst-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.
1.6
Technology Tools
Chapter 4 oers a study of the technologies available for increasing the quantity of water available, increasing the eciency 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 oered 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.
1.7
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 priority because they are identied as those most likely to be highly eective or cost-ecient in acheiving national water resource sustainability. 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 rst-order and higher-order policy impacts.
Chapter 2
Problem Background
To establish agricultural water management as a priority subject for national policy attention, this report rst examines the historical context, present situation, and quantitative signicance of selected water resource problems in the United States. This chapter is organized by following the mass ow of water from source to use to discharge: SourcesSurface water and groundwater, the two most signicant water sources for agriculture, are described along with national usage trends and implications for specic regions of the country. UsesIrrigation, the primary use of water withdrawn for agricultural production, is quantied and the potential for increases in eciency is discussed. DischargesThe fate of agricultural water supplies is examined with regard to quantity 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 quantied. By understanding the diculties 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
Inputs Precipitation Runo Inltration Seepage
Outputs Groundwater Pumping Evaporation Transpiration Streamow
Table 2.1: The agricultural water cycle: Inputs and outputs
2.1
The Challenge of Quantication
Identifying the nature of sustainable water resources in the United States is technically challenging. From an engineering standpoint, a balance for waterjust like any other mass quantitycan be achieved by determining input, output, and accumulation within a dened area. While such a mass balance is conceptually simple, the practice of determining input, output, and accumulation quantities can be dicult and expensive. The list of major water inputs and outputs, at least, is straightforward and is shown in Table 2.1. The diculty 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, streamow (output) is aected by the local aquifer level (accumulation), which is in turn aected by inltration 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 simplications (Carter, Tschakert and Morehouse 2000). The interaction between groundwater and surface water is still an active area of geophysical research. Where data is available, competing models yield conicting quantitative analyses of U.S. 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 denitive 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
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 U.S. water resources (Frederick 1995): Agricultural groundwater removal generally exceeds the natural recharge rate. Groundwater over-pumping causes irreversible land settling and loss of aquifer storage capacity. Surface water diversion contributes to downstream ecosystem deterioration. Agricultural non-pointsource pollution is an important contributor to water quality degradation. Articially low water prices for agriculture promote water use ineciency. Present United States water policies are insucient to ensure future water supply security. In support of the last point of agreement, one author notes: The largest hindrances to eective water management in virtually all countries are the outmoded economic and institutional policies (taxes, subsidies and regulations) 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 specic ndings 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 eective policy.
10
Figure 2.1: Estimated use of water in the United States 19501990 (USGS, published at 5-year intervals)
2.2
2.2.1
Agricultural Water Sources

Surface Water
Surface water is that portion of water available in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams and reservoirs. 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 constructed at a cost of $4 billion dollars to the federal government (Streatfeild 1998).
Problem: Downstream Eects Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include threatened or endangered species. A minimum ow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat, which in the case of the Pacic Salmon harvest can translate into substantial economic losses (Simon 1998). Surface ow diversion along the Columbia River has resulted in U.S. Fish
11
Figure 2.2: Aquifer locations in the western United States and Wildlife Service purchases of upstream water rights for downstream ow augmentation (USFWS 2001). Often the amount of water promised through right-holder contracts exceeds the safe ow available. In recent drought years the Colorado River has diminished to little more than a trickle before reaching the Pacic Ocean, leading to negative environmental impacts in the Colorado delta ecosystem (CRWUA 2001).
2.2.2
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 U.S. is thought to contain almost a quadrillion gallons of water nearly the capacity of Lake Huron (Buddemeier et al. 2000). Unlike rapidly moving surface
12
water, groundwater ows slowly through soil and rock ssures. 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 fossil aquifers, since they are essentially nite resources, similar to fossil fuel deposits (OTA 1983). Aquifer locations in the western United States can be seen in Figure 2.2. Since the mid-1950s, when federally subsidized electric cooperatives made electricity available in the U.S. 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 elds. Groundwater-fed irrigated farms make up almost a third of the total value for U.S. crop production (ODonnell and Rademaekers 1997).
Problem: Groundwater Overdraft According to the United States Geological Survey, signicant 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 2.5 million acre-feet per year, approximately 50% in excess of maximum sustainable yield (Carter et al. 2000). A Kansas Geological Survey study projects that signicant 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
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 justication for legislative action (Congress 2001).
2.3
Agricultural Water Use
This section of the chapter rst 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: 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 usewater extracted from a river or an aquifer is largely consumed via evapotranspiration. It is therefore crucial that consumptive uses be performed in the most ecient manner possible so as to minimize water loss. 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 users 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
Figure 2.3: 1990 irrigation withdrawals, as the percent of total freshwater withdrawals (USGS 1990)
2.3.1
Irrigation
Agricultural irrigation is the single largest consumptive use of water in the United States. Irrigation in the U.S. accounts for 40% of total national water use. The relative regional importance of irrigation withdrawals is shown in Figure 2.3.
Problem: Irrigation Eciency
The vast quantities of water consumed in irrigation mean that any gains in eciency can substantially decrease water usage. Worldwide, irrigation is an average of 37% ecient; 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 U.S. use the most ecient irrigation methods available (USDA 1998). If farmers across the country could raise total use eciency to 90%, it would reduce the nation water demand by upwards of 15%.
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 articially 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 identied signicant 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 nationwide irrigation infrastructure and energy requirements with annual irrigation subsidies totaling $2.2 billion dollars (Edwards and DeHaven 2001).
Problem: Water Inecient Crops
Analysis of water demands by agriculture requires an examination of the national cultivation of water inecient 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 ecient crops, agriculture could potentially reduce current and future national water demands. Table 2.2 summarizes the water eciency of several common crops.
16
Crop/Food
Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilogram food)
Current Acres vested
US Har-
Potato Wheat Alfalfa Sorghum Corn/Maize Soybeans Rice Chicken Beef
5001,500 9002,000 9002,000 1,1001,800 1,0001,800 1,1002,000 1,9005,000 3,5005,700 15,00070,000
1,128,716 3,185,163 5,977,985 565,327 1,077,8245 4,191,102 3,238,026 n/a n/a
Table 2.2: Water consumption by food type (Gleik 2000, USDA 1998)
2.4
Agricultural Water Discharge
After rainfall events or irrigation, some water will evaporate or be absorbed by plants, while the rest will leave the elds either by surface runo or by inltration into aquifers. This runo and inltration 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 generally more dicult to manage and treat than its pointsource counterpart. In addition, the eects 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).
17
The U.S. 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 euents, primarily due to the dicult nature of quantifying non-pointsource pollution. The problem of agricultural pollution pertains both to ground and surface water. According to the Environmental Protection Agencys Fact Sheet for 1994, ... agriculture is the leading source of impairment in the nations rivers, aecting 72% of the impaired river miles ... States attribute 56% of problems in lakes to agriculture (EPA 1994, 2). The Oce of Technology Assessment agrees, as stated in its document Environmental Tools for Policy Makers: [A]griculture is thought to be the single largest source of remaining river and lake water quality problems (OTA 1995, 19). With regards to groundwater, according to the 1994 EPA report, the most frequently cited pollutants are (EPA 1994, 4): Nitrates (49 states) Volatile organic compounds (48 states) Petroleum products (46 states) Metals (45 states) Pesticides (43 states) Of these, the rst and the last pertain directly to agriculture. This report analyzes analyze these two pollutants separately, with an emphasis on the sources, eects, and the potential for pollution removal or prevention.
2.4.1
Nitrates
Nitrates are an essential component of fertilizers, both man-made and natural (i.e. manure). However, if nitrates become dissolved in irrigation or rainwater, they can leach into
18
groundwater or run o into surface water, causing serious water quality degradation. The three main sources of nitrate contributions to the environment are as follows, with the rst two sources directly resulting from agricultural production (Schrama 1998): Application of manure to grazing and silage elds in livestock production. Use of fertilizers in agriculture. Deposition of NOx and NHy from atmospheric sources.
Problem: Nitrate Toxicity Once ingested into the human body, nitrates can be converted into compounds called nitrosamines, 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 (OToole 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 sh kills, loss of riparian habitat, death of benecial 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 signicant problem, nitrate overload has resulted in decreased diversity of ora and fauna (Schrama 1998).
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 5,000 gallons of manure each year, containing 200 pounds of nitrogen, as well as 43 pounds of phosphorus, and 138 pounds of potassiumall 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.
2.4.2
Pesticides
Farmers use a wide variety of chemicals to control unwanted weeds and pests on their property. Herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and fungicides all fall under the broad heading of pesticides. According to the EPA, the United States spends a total of $11.9 billion per year on pesticides. Seventy percent of this total is used in agricultureequivalent to about $4,400 per farm for 1.9 million farms (Aspelin and Grube 1999). The United States accounts for almost one-third of pesticide use in the world, with 18 pesticide manufactures, 2,200 formulators, 17,000 distributors, and 375,000 commercial applicators supplying pesticides nationally. The annual U.S. pesticide application rate is approximately 800 million pounds (Aspelin and Grube 1999).
20
Figure 2.4: U.S. 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. Organophosphates and carbamates, two common forms of insecticide, inhibit the production of the enzyme cholinesterase, important for controlling the function of the nervous system. Additionally, 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 runo based on precipitation levels. In many streams, the annual average concentrations of pesticides are within regulatory standards for
21
drinking water but may exceed water quality standards during peak usage times. However, quantifying these contamination levels is dicult. The diculties in quantifying the threat of pesticides to water resources is explained by the USGS: Our ability to assess the signicance of pesticides in surface waters is limited by several factors. 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. Second, criteria are based on tests with individual pesticides and do not account for possible cumulative eects if several dierent pesticides are present. 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 signicant gaps in our understanding of the extent and signicance 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).
2.5
Summary
This chapter has introduced the most signicant agricultural water resource problems currently 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 importance of each. Having established the context and background for each problem, this technology assessment next examines selected impacts resulting from these problems.
22
Chapter 3
Selected Problem Impacts

Besides the problem-specic impacts mentioned in the preceding chapter, there are a variety of general impacts that relate to many of the identied problems. Groundwater overdraft and surface water diversion are two such impacts. This chapter examines the rst-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 U.S. policy makers.
3.1
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 U.S. 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.
3.1.1
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
Figure 3.1: 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).
3.1.2
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 lands surface height (USGS 1995). Figure 3.1 illustrates the dramatic aect land subsidence can have. This photo, taken in California, shows the position of the land surface in 1925, 1955, and 1977. In 1977 the regions farmers stopped using groundwater, and instead switched to surface water.
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 ooding. The National Research Council estimates the annual costs due to increased ooding 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).
3.1.3
Depletion of Surface Water
Groundwater interacts with surface water by supplying streamow and maintaining wetlands in times of low precipitation. On average about 40 percent of the river ow nationwide 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.
3.1.4
Degraded Aquifer Water Quality
The water quality is generally lower in the deeper parts of aquifers, resulting in higher ltration 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 specic limits, although these vary based on the salinity tolerance of dierent crops. In general, a salinity level of greater than 1,000 ppm renders water useless for most irrigation applications (Leonard 1986).
26
3.2
Impacts of Surface Water Diversion
Often, the amount of water promised through rights-holder contracts exceeds the safe ow available. For example, the maximum allowable diversion of ow in the Colorado River is set at 7.5 million acre-feet per year, which is split between seven states. Because the Colorado is primarily fed by Rocky Mountain snowpack, ow in the river can uctuate signicantly 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 Pacic Ocean (CRWUA 2001).
3.2.1
Habitat Loss
Surface water provides habitat for wetland and riverine ecosystems which often include threatened or endangered species. A minimum ow is necessary to prevent loss of habitat, which in the case of the Pacic Salmon harvest can translate into economic losses. The Interior Department estimates that annual economic losses due to low streamow in the Columbia River are in the tens of millions of dollars (Simon 1998). Surface ow diversions in the Columbia basin have forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase nearly $10 million dollars worth of water rights over 5 years for downstream ow augmentation (USFWS 2001).
3.2.2
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).
27
3.2.3
Municipal Supply Problems
Communities that are forced to resort to diverted water supplies, like Phoenix and Tucson, often suer ill eects when new water sources are introduced. The physical and chemical composition of new water sources can cause substantial municipal problems. For example, when Tucson rst 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).
3.2.4
Pollution Concentration
In times of depleted surface ow, nutrient contributions from both pointsource and nonpointsource polluters are increased, relative to streamow. The decreased dilution of nutrients results in a greater likelihood of algal blooms, dissolved oxygen depletion, and other negative eects associated with eutrophication (IEE 2001). Higher nutrient concentrations also contribute to increased treatment costs for downstream municipal drinking water systems.
3.3
3.3.1
Second-Order Impacts
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 protable 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 U.S. Environment and Energy Study Institute summarized the problem of scarcity and uncertainty thusly: Now we come to the $64,000 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
continue our past practices, it will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of billions. (Goldberg 1994).
3.3.2
Loss of Farm Production
In 1980, cash receipts from marketing livestock and their products and crops in the 17 Western States accounted for approximately $59.3 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 foodstus to meet its demand.
3.3.3
Changes to Animal Agriculture
Scarcity of water will inate grain prices, which will aect stakeholders that depend on grain availability, including animal agriculture producers. The costs of many foods will rise, with meat production perhaps the most signicantly aected. Cattle production requires 7 kilograms of grain for 1 kilogram of live weight; pork and poultry are slightly more ecient 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.
3.3.4
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 eciency 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, The losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such
29
a nature that they cannot be compensated (Gollehon 1999). The unemployment rate of the county jumped 14% as a direct result of water transfers.
30
Chapter 4
Technologies
Having described and quantied 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.
4.1
4.1.1
Water Sources: Increasing Quantity

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 4.1 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 $70 per acre-foot of water, the high cost of desalination makes it unlikely that agriculture could subsist by using this technology. However, in California desalination has proven useful in providing water during short-term emergency shortages. Beyond the issue of cost, desalination has a number of other problems: 31
32
Desalination Source Seawater Brackish groundwater Municipal wastewater (excludes cost of pretreatment and distribution)
Capital Cost ($) 20,300,000 7,000,00010,000,000 6,400,000
Product Cost ($/ac.ft) 1,300 440500 540
Table 4.1: The typical costs of desalination, 1992 dollars (CCC 1993) Facilities must be constructed near the coasts, which tend to be sensitive environmental areas. Plant and animal habitats could be disrupted by the presence of a desalination plant. Facilities must dispose of the salts that are removed from raw water; this highly concentrated brine requires specialized disposal. Desalination is a very energy intensive process. For example, before the Santa Barbara reverse-osmosis plant shut down, it used about 6,600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot of water produced. In states already suering from energy crises, these high electricity demands make desalination a less attractive alternative. (CCC 1993).
4.1.2
Dams and Reservoirs
Currently, the United States has more than 75,000 dams and reservoirs with a total storage capacity of about 860 million acre-feet. While these bodies of water also provide recreational and power-generation uses, many are primarily intended as water storage devices. By accommodating seasonal variations in streamow, reservoirs allow water resource administrators to plan for the average downstream ow rate. Despite their general utility, there are a number of points to consider about dams and reservoirs: Many of the best areas to build high capacity reservoirs have already been used. (OTA 1983)
33
Sedimentation, the deposition of eroded rock, is dropping reservoir capacity by about 1.5 million acre-feet each year (OTA 1983). Dams require maintainance to prevent safety hazards to downstream populations and habitats. There is growing environmental resistance to dams, focused on their negative eects to animal habitats and migration patterns. Surface evaporation rates put practical limits on the size of reservoirs. A study of U.S 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).
4.1.3
Water Reuse
Water reuse consists of a set of technologies designed to facilitate three distinct kinds of water recycling: Direct potable reuse Direct non-potable reuse 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 contentious. In direct potable reuse the euent of a wastewater treatment plant is routed
34
directly to the intake of a drinking-water treatment plant. Because of the seemingly closedloop cycle this process achieves, it is often called toilet-to-tap (WRA 2001). However, a number of issues prevent widespread adoption of this technology: Direct potable reuse is technically demanding because wastewater requires more extensive treatment prior to re-introduction in the drinking water plant. Typically, wastewater is discharged to receiving bodies of water such as lakes and rivers; directly cycling the wastewater back into drinking water requires physical and chemical treatment surpassing that necessary for surface water discharge (Baumann and Dworkin 1978). Direct potable reuse is societally contentious because of the negative associations of wastewater. Although many communities already practice indirect potable reuse because their drinking water intake lies downstream of another municipalitys wastewater 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). While some of the initial upset over direct reuse can be attributed to a general ignorance of the realities of water treatment, direct potable reuse does suer some serious questions regarding health and hygiene. The dilution of pollutants by receiving bodies of water in traditional water treatment plays a signicant role in cleaning the water. A system that loops back a large quantity of its water volume has the risk of concentrating pollutants over time. While EPA-limited pollutants and pathogens are closely monitored, there are other potential problem chemicals whose eects 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
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, oce parks and city gardens that typically use clean drinking water for irrigation can switch to treated wastewater without measurable ill eects (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 benets 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 inltrates 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. Usually physical and biological processes in the soil oset this concern, unless the concentration of a pollutant is unusually high(Baumann and Dworkin 1978). Another negative eect is the potential consumer confusion between potable and nonpotable 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 suer 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
Indirect Potable and Non-potable Reuse: Aquifer Recharge
These two options are grouped together because the technology for achieving them is the same. Also known as aquifer recharge, the two main technologies involved are reservoir inltration 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 nished drinking water standards. The water is then piped to large basins where it is allowed to inltrate 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).
4.2
Water Uses: Improving Eciency
The second part of the agricultural water cycle, as outlined in Chapter Two, is the use phase. If the eciency of use is increased, the magnitude of agricultural water impacts can be decreased. Two technological areas where eciency gains are possible are irrigation and bioengineering of crops.
37
Irrigation Method Surge
Advantages Simple, low setup costs, low energy
Disadvantages Tendency to over-irrigate,
non-uniform distribution High initial costs High initial costs, requires expert management, prone to clogging
Sprinkle Drip
Easier to control High water eciency, high frequency, precise
Table 4.2: Irrigation methods
4.2.1
Irrigation
The main problem with irrigation is its low eciency. Table 4.2 summarizes the characteristics of the irrigation methods described in this section; generally, higher eciency methods cost more and require more expertise. Experiments in the Texas High Plains aquifer region have shown that a move to low pressure sprinklers, low-energy precision application sprinklers, and drip irrigation systems can help farmers raise eciencies from 60% (the average eciency for furrow irrigation systems) to 90 or 95%. Farmers in the studies also saw crop yields increase 10-15%. These benets resulted from reduced evaporation, runo, and seepage (Postel 1999, 187).
Surface Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used method of irrigation. Also called gravity irrigation or eld ooding, surface irrigation relies on the natural slope of a eld to distribute water. Water is released at the head of a sloping eld and is allowed to ow to the other end. The eciency of a surface irrigation system is dependent on the type of soil and the slope of the eld. The soil serves two roles: the rst is distribution, to convey the water to other parts of the eld, and the second is inltration, the delivery of the water to the plant roots. Variations in the soils inltration capacity lead to non-uniform water distribution,
38
making it necessary to over-irrigate some parts of a eld in order to give adequate coverage to the whole eld (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 furrows, U or Vshaped 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 ows downward, under the furrows themselves, and sideways, into the ridges. However, because there is no water owing 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 modication to surface and furrow irrigation systems. Instead of ooding a eld continuously, the water is released in surges, as the name implies. This method requires the addition of microprocessor-controlled surge valves. The rst pulse of water creates a layer of mud that seals the soil, allowing subsequent pulses to continue down the eld more quickly and uniformly. Adding surge valves to existing systems has the potential to increase eciency by about 20% (Postel 1999, 187).
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 conveying/distributing water to the eld. Sprinkle systems are designed to apply water at rates that do not exceed the soils rate of inltration, in order to prevent surface runo. Sprinkle systems are often a practical alternative for sloped or shallow soils. The uniformity of application generally depends much more on sprinkler position and placement than the soil type. These systems are aected 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 inltration rate of the soil, so the drip method is very ecient, losing little water to evaporation. Water is also released more frequently than in other irrigation methods (Crow 2000). Drip irrigation oers 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 ltered, and there is a relatively high maintenance cost, in addition to high setup costs (Hillel 1987).
40
4.2.2
Water-Thrifty Crops
Water lost through ineciencies 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.
4.3
Water Discharge: Reducing Pollution
The nal phase of the agricultural water use cycle is discharge, in which water returns by runo 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 polluters 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 primary options available to alleviate non-pointsource pollution. However, most BMPs are not technology-based, in the traditional sense of technology. BMPs include tilling elds less frequently, or planting alternating rows of corn and beans, or placing ditches where sediment will collect rather than run o into streams (Gale, Line, Osmond, Coey, 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 pesticides can be developed that are more environmentally friendly. A spokesman for Novartis, a biochemicals company, asserts that [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 eect (Samo 1997). However, some bioengineered products may lead to increased pesticide applications; for instance, Monsantos Roundup Ready
41
line of soybeans has been made resistant to the pesticide, eectively raising the maximum amount that can be applied to a eld (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
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, specic 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.
5.1
Policy Tools
This chapter rst 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 specic policy options that utilize those tools are explored, along with their potential impacts. 43
44
5.1.1
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. Specic 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 ineective. Regulations passed by the Congress must be accompanied by the resources to provide eective enforcement. In addition, Congressionally-mandated periodic reviews of nationwide permit enforcement processes can increase eciency by revealing weaknesses and redundancies in the enforcement system.
Market Creation Creating legal frameworks designed to let free-market forces eect 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 signicant 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 ecient manner. Additionally, euent trading markets for non-pointsource dischargers can reduce water quality impacts, and may help bring about better basin-level watershed management.
45
5.1.2
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 eorts that pertain directly to managing agricultural water impacts could be eective 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 specically 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 eects of producer payments can help provide for national water use eciency.
Tax Breaks and Business Incentives The government can also eect positive change in water management indirectly by providing nancial incentives to businesses. By nancially encouraging agricultural companies and producers to independently undertake initiatives related to water management or waste reduction, increases in water use eciency and pollution reduction can be expected. Tax breaks to companies that take nancial risks in order to minimize negative water-related impacts can be an eective use of federal money.
46
5.1.3
Informational Tools
Technical Advice and Oversight The Congress can make informational resources available to aid in the creation and operation 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 ocials can aid in the approval process by taking into account the larger societal eects of water transfers that are beyond the jurisdiction of state ocials. Additionally, technical resources can be made available to create a clearinghouse of information for potential water-right or euent-quota transfers, helping to maximize market eciency.
Educational Programs A ten-year USDA/USEPA study into the eectiveness of BMPs to reduce non-pointsource pollution discovered that education may be the most cost-eective way to decrease pollutant levels. A lack of information about the various BMPs available prevents some farmers from voluntarily implementing these practices. Signicant, quantiable drops in non pointsource pollution have been documented as a result of voluntary BMP compliance through education. The establishment of a nationwide producer education program is one example of a potentially eective information-based policy available to the Congress.
5.2
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 technological 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
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 rst-order and potential higher-order impacts.
5.2.1
Quality-Focused Policies
Require permits for non-pointsource discharges The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Clean Water Act as establishing a comprehensive and all-compassing framework for water pollution regulation, irrespective of whether a discharge is pointsource or non-pointsource. EPA agrees that total maximum 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 oset by the economic advantages of limiting and managing TMDL pollution loads within watersheds (Fox 2000). Besides limiting pollutant levels and leading to the positive eects associated with reduced nutrient loads, such a program would facilitate integrated basin-level management, 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 eect 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
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, eectively canceling the risk of job and tax base losses (USDA 1997).
Legalize euent trading among permit holders Euent markets present the possibility of reducing basin-wide pollutant discharge in a exible and market-driven manner. By allowing the buying and selling of euent discharge capacity, an euent market system is inherently more ecient than other systems founded on simple regulation. Euent markets that are already in place have applied all the progressive-reduction tenets of regulation-based systems, which demand reduced total emissions (Inc. 2001). Furthermore, a market system will reduce the time and eort needed to inspect factory equipment by measuring the total emissions from a given plant rather than summing the outputs from specic pieces of equipment in that factory (RECLAIM 2001). The euent 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.
5.2.2
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 eect a more just process of rights trading, since the present system only addresses the concerns of rst-order stakeholders such as the direct buyers and sellers
49
of water rights (Gollehon 1999). Economic studies of water markets indicate that overall economic eciency 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 benets fall on dierent populations within the state. Income loss is typically concentrated within subcounty 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 suering 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 armatively to the statement: The losses to the community associated with the transfer of water are of such a nature that they cannot be compensated (Charney and Woodward 1990).
Fund the construction of municipal storage and reuse technologies
One way to oset 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
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 Californias 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 Californias Westlands Water District were still controlled by only 50 dierent operations, resulting in an estimated average farm size of 1,312 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 technically 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 benet 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 surplus cropscrops that the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays other farmers not to grow. Payments for surplus crops average $1.5 billion annually (Edwards and DeHaven 2001). Thus the government unnecessarily spends at least $2.3 billion per year on irrigationrelated 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
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-inecient 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 virtual water. 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).
5.2.3
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 benets 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 internalized by producers, which will lead to producers
52
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 eectiveness 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 farmers to discharge illegal amounts of pollution. Often the discharges are unintentional, but in all cases the farms operate without suering the consequences of breaching the stated regulations. It is presumed that a review of present enforcement eectiveness 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 identied in the review, it will be possible for government agencies on dierent levels (i.e. state-level and national level) to pool their resources, eliminate the duplication of work, and eectively inspect all agricultural producers (NPS 1999). This increased eciency 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 nes 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 desalination/purication (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
53
energy-ecient 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 dierent scales (i.e. basin-wide, state-wide and nation-wide). Additionally, monies are usually set aside to look at a specic 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
Bibliography
Allan, J. A.: 1997, Virtual water: A long term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies? SOAS Water Issues Study Group, Occasional Papers, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/aln02/. 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). http://www.agbioforum. org/vol2no34/altieri.htm. ASCE: 2001, Policy statements. policy-public.cfm. 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, water.wr.usgs.gov/subsidence/ls_3.html. Bouwer, H.: 2000, Integrated water management: Emerging issues and challenges, Journal of Agricultural Water Management 45(1), 217228. Brawdy, B.: 1998, The Yakima, a river wasted: State doing little to ensure dairy animals arent polluting river. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/yakima/day3/story3.html. Brown, L. R.: 2001, How water scarcity will shape the new century, Water Science and Technology 43(4), 17 22. Buddemeier, R. W. et al.: 2000, An atlas of the Kansas High Plains aquifer. Kansas Geological Survey, http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/HighPlains/atlas/index.html. Carter, R. H., Tschakert, P. and Morehouse, B. J.: 2000, Assessing the sensitivity of the Southwests 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, http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ climas/reportseries/index.html. American Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org/news/
55
56
CCC: 1993, Seawater desalination in California. California Coastal Commission, http://www.coastal.ca. gov/web/desalrpt/dtitle.html##TOCDesalination. 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), 119399. 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. http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/ Text/Other/Wwg.pdf. Crow, D.: 2000, Ancient irrigation. http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL115/115CH17oldirrigation. html. CRWUA: 2001, Arizona at a glance: Colorado river prole. Colorado River Water Users Association, http://crwua.mwd.dst.ca.us/az/crwua_az.htm. Edwards, C. and DeHaven, T.: 2001, Farm subsidies at record levels as Congress considers new farm bill. Cato Institute, Brieng Paper 70, www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp70.pdf. 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, Oce of Water, Document 800-F-99-002, http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdlfs. html. EPA: 2001a, A Guidebook of Financial Tools, Section 6: Tools for Lowering Costs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Finance Program. http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/ guidbk98/gbk6.htm. EPA: 2001b, Non-point source program. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa. gov/region4/water/nps. FAO: 2001, Law and markets - improving the legal environment for marketing: Improving regulatory frameworks. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/ agricult/ags/AGSM/legal/chap_6.pdf. Fox, J. C.: 2000, Testimony of J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.senate.gov/~epw/fox_0518.htm. Frederick, K. D.: 1995, Americas water supply: Status and prospects for the future, Consequences 1(1). Gale, J., Line, D., Osmond, D., Coey, S., Spooner, J., Arnold, J., Hoban, T. and Wimberley, R.: 1993, Evaluation of the experimental Rural Clean Water Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/rcwp/index.html, EPA-841-R-93-005.
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, http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/publications/sustainability/report_html/cover.html. Gleik, P. H.: 2000, The Worlds Water 2000-2001, Island Press, Washington, D.C. 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. acnatsci.org/erd/ea/future_COW.html. Gollehon, N. R.: 1999, Water markets: Implications for rural areas of the West, Rural Development Perspectives 14(2). Hartmann, J. R. and Goldstein, J. H.: 1994, Western riparian wetlands: The impact of federal programs on wetlands. http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch12.html. Hetzel, G.: 1996, Safe use of pesticides in agriculture. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Publication Number 442-036, http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/safety/442-036/442-036.html. Hillel, D.: 1987, The Ecient Use of Water in Irrigation, World Bank, Washington, D.C. IEE: 2001, Small watersheds network: Nutrients. Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Maryland http://iee.umces.edu/AV/EDU/SWN/Modules/M2.html. Inc., L. A.: 2001, The cleaner and greener program: Emission trading 101. http://www.cleanerandgreener. org/environment/emissiontrading.htm. Kranz, W. L., Hay, D. R. and Goeke, J. W.: 1993, Understanding groundwater. Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of NebraskaLincoln, http://www.ianr. unl.edu/pubs/Water/g1128.htm. Leonard, R.: 1986, Agriculture and groundwater quality, Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Southeastern Groundwater Issues, pp. 125144. McGuire, V. L., Stanton, C. P. and Fischer, B. C.: 1999, Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer: 19801996. United States Geological Survey, http://ne.water.usgs.gov/highplains/hp96_web_report/ hp96_factsheet.htm. Murray, P. (ed.): 1995, Water Sources, Principle and Practices of Water Supply Operations, second edn, American Water Works Association, Denver. NPS: 1999, Idaho dairymens pledge to clean up their act pays o, 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, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064163/html/index.html.
58
ODonnell, M. and Rademaekers, J.: 1997, Water use trends in the Southwestern United States 19501990. United States Geological Survey, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/
water_use/. OTA: 1983, Water-related technologies for sustainable agriculture in U.S. arid/semiarid lands. United States Congress, Oce of Technology Assessment. OTA: 1995, Environmental policy tools. United States Congress, Oce of Technology Assessment. OToole, Jr., L. J.: 1998, Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, chapter 12, 13. OTT: 2001, Technologies aecting groundwater. United States Oce of Techology Transfer. Phillips, N.: 2001, Groundwater & surface water: Understanding the interaction. Conservation Technology Information Center, www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/GroundSurface.html. Pimental, D. e. a.: 1997, Water resources: Agriculture, the environment, and society, BioScience 47(2), 97 106. Postel, S.: 1985, Conserving Water: The Untapped Alternative, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. 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). reclaim.html. Rhodes, S. L. and Wheeler, S. E.: 1996, Rural electrication and irrigation in the U.S. High Plains, Journal of Rural Studies 12(3), 311317. Samo, W.: 1997, Pesticides and agriculture. http://www.pmac.net/samo.htm. 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. 42232. Stakhiv, E. Z.: 1998, Policy implications of climate change impacts on water resources management, Water Policy 1(2), 159175. Streatfeild, R.: 1998, Central Arizona Project pathnder. University of Arizona Law School, http://www. law.arizona.edu/library/LibraryInternet/Documents/Pathfinders/rstreat/pathdesc.html. Sutton, A. L. and Joern, B. C.: 2001, Land application of manure. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, http://hermes.ecn.purdue.edu/cgi/convwqtest?wq-16.in.ascii. USBR: 2001, Water technologies. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Water Treatment Engineering and Research Group, http://www.usbr.gov/water/content/c_tech.html. http://www.aqmd.gov/reclaim/
59
USDA: 1997, NAFTAs impact on agriculture: The rst 3 years. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/sep1997/ao244e. pdf. USDA: 1998, 1998 farm & ranch irrigation survey. United States Department of Agriculture, http://www. nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/fris.htm. USFWS: 2001, Fiscal year 2002 budget justications. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, http:// budget.fws.gov/greenbook/toc.html. USGS: 1990, National water-use maps. United States Geological Survey, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/ wumaps.color.html. USGS: 1995, Ground water studies. United States Geological Survey, http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/ GW.html##HDR3. USGS: 2000, A reconnaisance study of the eect of irrigated agriculture on water quality in the Ogallala formation, central High Plains aquifer. United States Geological Service, http://webserver.cr.usgs. gov/nawqa/hpgw/factsheets/MCMAHONFS1.html. USGS: 2001a, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. United States Geological Service, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/. USGS: 2001b, The quality of our nations waters: Nutrients and pesticides. United States Geological Survey, Circular 1225, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/. Vaux Jr, H.: 1990, The Changing Economics of Agricultural Water Use, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 812. Villarejo, D. and Redmon, J.: 1989, Missed opportunities, squandered resources: Why prosperity brought water does not trickle-down in the California Central Valley. http://www.cirsinc.org/. Williams, C. M. M.: 2001, Environmentally superior waste management technologies. Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, NCSU http://mark.asci.ncsu.edu/NCPorkConf/williams.htm. WRA: 2001, Home page. The WateReuse Association, http://www.watereuse.org.

Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

c 2001 Elizabeth Covalla, Chethan Pandarinath, James Williams,

Jon Williams, Andy Wingo

A Typeset by the authors with the L TEX 2 Documentation System.

Agricultural Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Water Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 2.4.2 Nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Changes to Animal Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure of Local Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Uses: Improving Eciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 4.2.2 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water-Thrifty Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Discharge: Reducing Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Priority Policy Options 5.1 Policy Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2

Regulatory Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subsidy Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informational Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Priority Policy Options

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Inputs Precipitation Runo Inltration Seepage

Outputs Groundwater Pumping Evaporation Transpiration Streamow

Table 2.1: The agricultural water cycle: Inputs and outputs

The Challenge of Quantication

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Agricultural Water Sources

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Agricultural Water Use

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Problem: Irrigation Eciency

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Problem: Irrigation Subsidies

Problem: Water Inecient Crops

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Water Requirement (kilograms water per kilogram food)

Current Acres vested

Potato Wheat Alfalfa Sorghum Corn/Maize Soybeans Rice Chicken Beef

5001,500 9002,000 9002,000 1,1001,800 1,0001,800 1,1002,000 1,9005,000 3,5005,700 15,00070,000

1,128,716 3,185,163 5,977,985 565,327 1,077,8245 4,191,102 3,238,026 n/a n/a

Agricultural Water Discharge

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Selected Problem Impacts

Impacts of Groundwater Overdraft

Higher Pumping Costs

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Depletion of Surface Water

Degraded Aquifer Water Quality

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Impacts of Surface Water Diversion

Decreased Aquifer Recharge

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts

Municipal Supply Problems

Managing Agricultural Water Impacts