In late August 2016 The Oregonian ran a printed and online series of articles under the title 'Draining Oregon'. You can access the link-laden online series as well as additional resources from author Kelly M. House and visual media artist Mark Graves by clicking here. House recently left The Oregonian for the Meyer Memorial Trust.
Here is the PDF:
Download Draining_Oregon_0826c
Disclosure Notice: I am the vice chair of the Groundwater Advisory Committee (GWAC) of the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The GWAC is comprised of volunteers from the groundwater industry and advises the Water Resources Commission:
...on all matters relating to rules, legislation, and public policy for the development, securing, use and protection of ground water; licensing of well constructors, including the examination of such persons for license; and reviewing the proposed expenditures of all revenues generated under ORS 537.762(5).
I am finishing my fifth year on the GWAC.
The argument can be made that because of the above and my knowledge, experience, and position at Oregon State University I bear some of the responsibility for the sad tale 'Draining Oregon' tells. I accept that responsibility.
Author Kelly House conducted a phone interview with me last December or January. We spoke for about 30-45 minutes. I was not quoted in the article.
***************************************************************************************
The Articles - Impressions
The folks at the The Oregonian took the high road in titling the series. Instead of the relatively innocuous (given the gravity the subject) 'Draining Oregon' (heretofore titled 'DO') they could have chosen something more USA Today-like such as 'Groundwater Pumping Will Turn Oregon into a Barren Desert' or 'Death Knell for Agriculture and the Environment'. But they also could have titled it more like the Christian Science Monitor might have done: 'Groundwater Mismanagement in Oregon.
Nice touch: providing a PDF of the entire series. Very good takeaways (pages 13 and 14) and solutions proffered by others (page 37). Excellent graphics. Nice data analysis, too, especially when you consider that neither author is a hydrologist or hydrogeologist.
The use of gallons to depict volumes of water makes a large amount of pumping seem even larger. When talking about water use over large regions I prefer acre-feet - about 326,000 gallons, the amount of water that covers an acre (about one USA football field) to a depth of one foot. So one trillion gallons becomes about 3 million acre-feet (MAF) - still a lot of water, but not as much as what 'one trillion' suggests to the average reader. Use of gallons for volume measurement makes the issue sound graver to the average reader than it really is. Why use 34,000 acre-feet when 11 billion gallons will do?
I could also say that the amount of water irrigators pump - the one trillion gallon figure - represents an equivalent depth of 0.05 feet over all of Oregon. But I am being disingenuous, because the water is extricated from a much smaller area than the entire state. So if 3 MAF is pumped from beneath a land area equalling 10% of Oregon's area, then the equivalent depth is 0.50 feet.
The series is very good and brings to light a important issue; kudos to The Oregonian. House and Graves did an amazing amount of work, although they could not do an analysis more sophisticated than the type for which OWRD drew criticism. It's interesting that OWRD criticizes the DO team for using an unsophisticated approach. Duhhh....OWRD uses a USGS report that is almost 50 years old. Pot calling the kettle black?
Things I Was Surprised to Learn
Oh, those Oregon lawmakers!
In 1995 a lawmaker tried to legislate that surface water and groundwater are not connected. He actually got the bill passed but the governor vetoed the bill. Another legislator held up OWRD's budget when the agency was contemplating reducing pumping in his home region. No it wasn't punitive, the legislator said - he just expected a higher level of performance from OWRD. Yeah, right! One legislator wanted OWRD to use research money to help farmers pay for deepening their wells. Finally, a Bend area legislator wanted OWRD to back off on pumping restrictions because his developer clients could not build their projects. Conflict of interest, anyone?
While speaking of legislators, I must give a shout-out to Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario) who unsuccessfully lobbied for a statewide examination of aquifers and a financing program for homeowners whose wells had gone dry. The bill died in committee.
Some irrigators will even make huge investments - drilling wells, purchasing land, installing irrigation works - before they even get the drilling permit for a new well or wells from OWRD. That tells me that some irrigators think the permitting process is a joke. Sure sounds that way to me, although I would use the word 'ineffectual'.
Interesting aspect: reading that OWRD gets criticized for basing a decision to deny a permit on lack of data but then having those same critics or their fellow travelers shortchange OWRD when it comes to funding to study groundwater and obtain more data. Even a former director of OWRD challenged the legality of imposing a water-rights fee of $100 annually on the state's 87,000 water-rights holders. Nothing like friends in high places.
My Thoughts
Let’s not forget that volumetric pumping effects take time to propagate, depending upon how far away the affected areas are from the wells, among other things. So when you turn on the pumps the effects might not show up for a while, perhaps years or decades.
Dropping water levels in aquifers is not necessarily Armageddon. In an aquifer being pumped water levels are supposed to drop until a new equilibrium is established. What matters is the rate of decline and how rapidly it is declining. See Theis's classic paper, The Source of Water Derived from Wells and a later paper by Lenny Konikow and Stan Leake: Download Konikow_et_al-2014-Groundwater
Steady-state recharge (replenishment) rates alone are poor indicators of how much groundwater can be pumped. Groundwater development in a basin changes the water budget – the more pumping there is, the more things change. Steady-state conditions go out the window. [Note: I know Kelly House is aware of this.] The only way to assess the amount of water that can be ‘safely’ (and that word is loaded) pumped is to build a numerical model of the system and specify what 'safely' means (likely a societal decision).
Here are some post I wrote years ago on this issue: Water Budget Myth and Checkbook ['Water Budget'] Hydrology: Caveat Emptor.
The DO report dwells on the efficacy of the management of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. Appealing to Australia’s efforts in the Murray-Darling Basin is de rigueur these days. But don't forget that the Australian federal government plays a powerful role in the MDB. They allocate water rights (called ‘licences’), which are not permanent, can be revoked, and must be renewed every ten years. Copying the MDB approach in its entirety would never fly in the USA. A water bank/market is a good idea.
I don't place the blame so much on OWRD. One could argue (as I would) that they should have erred on the side of caution in approving irrigation well permits, but I can imagine the pressure that the agency must feel. The state legislature needs to fund the agency to study Oregon's groundwater. But the legislators, for the most part, don't want to know. If they knew, they would have to make some very difficult decisions - especially for those from rural Oregon.
The legislators should recall that Oregon's water belongs to the citizens of the state. Oregonians trust the state to act wisely as stewards of their water resources. People have a right to use water, but they do not own the water. This is not Texas, where the landowner can pump as much as s/he wants to, even without regard for 'beneficial use'. I understand that pumping groundwater and installing irrigation works are expensive, but the pumpers pay nothing for the water itself. They are just paying to access the water. Not good.
Suggestions – Not Necessarily Original
Here we go:
1) Err on the side of caution when issuing permits.
2) Utilize graduate/undergraduate students from Oregon and other universities to do thesis work in the affected areas and elsewhere. Yes, it will cost money but OWRD will get more bang for the buck.
3) Charge each of the 17,000 irrigation and other large-capacity (municipal and industrial) wells $150 per year and put this money towards groundwater work. Owners of the so-called ‘exempt wells’ - those not requiring a water right and limited to 15,000 gallons per day (about 16 acre-feet per year) - would pay $20 per year. There are about 150,000 of these wells so their effects can be locally significant. No one really knows how much these wells use – they are not metered.
4) Meter all large-capacity wells.
5) Refuse to permit wells drilled in anticipation of receiving permits.
6) Enlist the support of the state's 'movers and shakers' (or 'shovers and makers') to initiate a statewide study of Oregon's groundwater resources.
A Modest Proposal
I will offer to teach a 3 to 4 hour 'Groundwater 101' course in Salem for legislators at the start of the 2017 session. No charge. I'll let some people in Salem know about my offer.
This offer conflates nicely with the Groundwater Visibility Initiative and Oregon State University's land-grant university status.
This course will not solve the problems so cogently described by The Oregonian but will help our state's lawmakers better understand groundwater so they can make better decisions and choices.
Final Words
Kelly M. House, Mark Graves, and The Oregonian deserve our enduring gratitude for exposing a water problem that has festered like a sore for years. We Oregonians have been like ostriches with our heads in the sand. And speaking of birds, the chickens have come home to roost.
Time to get down to work.
Let's hope the Dutch are right.
"No policy without a calamity." - Dutch saying
Our Ten Cents Worth Times Two
Gregory and Malia Kupillas’ response to Michael Campana’s comments on The Oregonian’s series of articles titled “Draining Oregon.”
We read Michael’s “Ten Cents Worth” and thought he made some really good points, which we will expand on later. However, we have considerable experience as Certified Water Rights Examiners in Oregon and Malia has been serving on the Oregon Geologic Map Advisory Committee since 2002, which adds additional perspective and moves the tale from sad to happy.
Disclosure Notice:
Gregory Kupillas served on the Oregon Ground Water Advisory Committee from 2005 to 2011 and was Chair for two years. Certified Water Rights Examiner since 1996. Served on the Oregon Water Resources Department Well Construction Rules Advisory Committee.
Malia Kupillas served on the Oregon Ground Water Advisory Committee from 1999 to 2005 and served as the Vice-Chair before serving two years as the Chair. Certified Water Rights Examiner since 1999. Served on the Oregon Water Resources Department Well Construction Rules Advisory Committee.
One could argue, like Michael Campana did, that our combined twelve years of serving on the Oregon Ground Water Advisory Committee, plus the facts that we are Certified Water Rights Examiners and have served on several Oregon Water Resources Department’s Well Construction Rules Advisory Committees, that we are also responsible for the sad tale of “Draining Oregon.” However, we do not see a sad tale. We see a tale headed for happy.
Campana’s comments that warrant mentioning again:
1. Discussing water use on the scale contemplated in the articles in terms of gallons just doesn’t make sense. We also prefer to use acre-feet.
2. Michael’s calculations that show the total amount of water pumped for irrigation would only cover an equivalent depth of 0.50 feet helps to bring things into perspective when you consider the Willamette Valley averages around 40 inches of rainfall per year.
3. OWRD should err on the side of caution when issuing permits. OWRD has been doing this for at least 17 years, and we have the clients as proof of that caution.
4. Utilize graduate/undergraduate students. OWRD has successfully been doing this and many of those students are now employees.
5. Meter all large capacity wells. OWRD started requiring meters as a permit condition in 1993 and started requiring water use reporting from those meters in the early 1990’saround the same time.
6. OWRD needs to be properly funded from General Funds so OWRD can continue to study the water resources and develop management programs that include aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and recovery.
Our additional ten cents worth:
• Aquifers and groundwater uses are very dynamic. Water levels change from cyclic weather patterns, changes in recharge and changes from over use. Groundwater use in agriculture varies by type of crop grown, weather pattern, and method of irrigation. Agriculture can also rotate between using surface water when it is available and reserve groundwater for use during times of drought or when the fish need more water in a stream. The groundwater levels can then recover during more normal or above- normal rainfall periods. Therefore, a perceived decline today may not be a decline in the future and become a happy tale.
Understanding the hydrogeology of an area and having long-term water level data help to understand the amount of water that may be available for use without overstressing. However, declining water levels from overuse can be stabilized or recovered by implementing additional water conservation measures and/or increasing recharge. Artificial recharge and aquifer storage and recovery can change this to a happy tale. Se the below link for information on AR and ASR projects in Oregon. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268323716_Successful_implementation_of_ASR_in_basalt-hosted_aquifers_in_the_Pacific_Northwest_of_the_United_States
• The bulk of the funding for OWRD should come from the General Fund for several reasons:
o First, water is publically owned in Oregon and every decision OWRD makes has to take into account the welfare of the public (ORS 537.153(2) and OAR 690-009). Therefore, there is a public element that should be paid for by the public. The applicant for any water right transaction currently pays around 50% of the cost to process the application.
o Second, people forget they eat the food that is grown with the irrigated water. Therefore, the public also has a direct benefit from the water used to irrigate when they eat food grown in Oregon. Eating food grown in Oregon and locally also helps reduce the carbon footprint. Thus, irrigation allows agriculture to provide jobs and income to the state and reduce carbon emissions.
o Farmers do not have the luxury of passing on any annual fees for water use, which is really a tax, to their future consumers. The cost for farming continues to increase while the price for farm products are flat or are decreasing. The prices that farmers get for their products are largely out of their control, which makes it harder and harder to make a living in farming these days.
• The “Draining Oregon” article should have included this information:
o Many of the areas with a special designation have experienced water level declines due to well construction methods that have resulted in water commingling between water bearing zones in the Columbia River Basalts. Thus, the declines in these areas are not necessarily from over-use but from improper well construction. Future problems caused by improperly constructed wells could be avoided if the OWRD performed a full technical review of every well (which they currently are not doing because of a lack of funds). To begin addressing the current problems caused by commingling wells, OWRD created special well construction standards in the Mosier area for new wells as a pilot study. Existing wells are being repaired, replaced or abandoned. These special well construction standards will likely soon be applied to all new wells that obtain water from Columbia River Basalt aquifers. Therefore, the issue of well construction is being addressed moving groundwater in a happy direction.
o Development has reduced the amount of natural recharge aquifers used to receive by capturing the water and thereby expediting the travel time to the Pacific Ocean. Every ditch along every road and every drain tile captures water that could have become groundwater. Now that captured water stays as surface water and is expeditiously transported to the Pacific Ocean as quickly as possible. This captured water has also altered the hydrographs for the streams, which is why it is important to re-capture some of this lost recharge water and allow it to become groundwater.
o Aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and recovery have the potential to increase the amount of water available for future use and to stabilize water levels in areas where water levels are declining. Oregon at some time during the year experiences an overabundance of water. Usually, this overabundance is in the winter or when the snow melts in spring combined with spring storms. The best way for the state to implement these tools would be to develop these projects by basin. Currently, these projects are implemented in Oregon by a few municipalities, farmers, and irrigation districts. However, there would be economy-of-scale benefits to these projects if implemented at a basin or watershed level. This can change a sad tale to a happy tale.
o OAR 690-009 requires OWRD to review all groundwater rights for the potential to interfere with surface water and evaluate if there is adequate water in the stream if there is going to be an impact from pumping groundwater. We have seen OWRD deny many water right applications on the basis of these rules.
o A review of actual water use submitted to OWRD by farmers would show that most, if not all, farmers do not use their full allotted annual volume (duty). Farmers cannot afford to use more water than the crops need because that would unnecessarily increase their costs. Thus, any projections of water use based on the maximum amount allowed in the water right will overestimate actual use. The authorized duty is simply a use on paper, not in reality. Thus, a perceived sad tale may not be sad at all.
Water right permits require farmers to use best management practices for irrigation. In the last 17 years we have watched many of our clients switch to drip irrigation or other equally efficient methods of irrigation. The farmers use the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other conservation stewardship programs to voluntarily implement conservation practices. The following link provides some additional information on a case story for EQUIP in the Stayton-Sublimity area. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/or/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcseprd386815
o The types of crops grown in an area also change in response to market demand and water demand, which changes the volume of water used for irrigation. Water conservation and growing high value crops that use less water are reducing the amount of water needed for irrigation, which creates a happy tale.
o The Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) is working in collaboration with OWRD to facilitate the geologic mapping that OWRD needs for a better understanding of the aquifers and how they connect to surface water.
Posted by: Greg and Malia Kupillas | Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 02:02 PM
Thanks for your review of 'Draining Oregon'. In that review, you’ve captured quite succinctly the conundrums of ground water management. In our world, decision makers not only deny climate change, but roll their eyes when you suggest that “Ground water comes from somewhere.” Our agencies (we’re right in there, too, and quite famously) are constantly under fire for attempting to promote something approaching sustainability.
We’re saying “no” a lot more these days, only when we have data, and we’re going to court to defend it almost every time.
But they’re still out there, and it’ll be hard to say no once the lessons of that article recede into history.
I appreciate your review, your acceptance (as do I) of a fair share of responsibility, and your proposal to move forward. Again, you’re an example for us all.
Regards,
Guy Gregory
Washington State Department of Ecology
Posted by: Guy Gregory | Wednesday, 05 October 2016 at 09:05 AM