This book had been on my ‘to read’ list for months, and after I had arranged to meet with Larry MacDonnell last spring, I figured that I ought to read his book, and it was quite enjoyable. I highly recommend it to anyone who deals with western water.

 

In the introductory section, MacDonnell highlights several of the ‘classic’ books about the development of the west through development of water – Cadillac Dessert, Rivers of Empire, etc… – as well as books that provide “a deeper sense of place and people” – Beyond the Hundredth Meridian, Crossing the Next Meridian, The Land of Little Rain, etc… . His book does both. It is four case studies (Lower Arkansas Valley, CO; Grand Valley, CO; Truckee-Carson Basin, NV & WY; and Yakima, WA) of areas in which irrigated agriculture was the source of settlement in the 1800s and where initial development was by individual and collective efforts, followed later by federal water projects.

 

MacDonnell weaves the current water issues in each basin together with the historical context. Like so many issues we face today, systems that seem ill-designed and irrational make much more sense with an understanding of how they developed and the status of the region when they were initially built. His descriptions of the origins of the irrigation projects, the challenges they have faced over the past 150 years, and the decisions that face current farmers give the reader a much better understanding of how the system evolved in the manner it did.

 

He expresses this understanding of the historic context, along with a westerners’ dilemma between an impulse to correct past damage and an awe of the development of the region:

The investment in these projects was not a business decision. It was a policy decision to encourage development of the West. Perhaps, at the beginning, some really believed that reclamation-project beneficiaries would be able to pay the full costs of the project. Certainly by the 1920s no one still held on to that belief. Yet the great boom in project development occurred between the 1930s and 1960s, rationalized initially by a depression-era interest in public-works projects and, later, by revenues from hydroelectric power and by finding more and more public benefits that could be treated as non-reimbursable.


Even as I am aware of the damage caused by federal water-project development, I find myself more and more impressed by its original vision and purpose and by the benefits it has provided and continues to provide. I would not feel this way if I were a salmon or a Colorado pike minnow, but I am not a salmon or a pike minnow. At the same time I feel a clear sense of responsibility for the harm caused by these projects. It simply is not acceptable to me that my ability to live and work in the West is made possible only by eliminating species of fish that have thrived in western rivers for millions of years. (p. 253) 




He then goes on to acknowledge the very western idea of rewarding investment in water development with the certainty of a perpetual water right:

Water rights exist under state law to protect investments made by human users to develop and use water. They exist to ensure that those who have made an economic commitment to some water-development activity do not loose that investment because of other human water uses. Water rights are regarded as property rights because of the economic investment they provide.
Control of western water resources rests largely with water-right holders and their representative organizations. It is they who determine how much stream flow will be stored in reservoirs and when that water will be released for downstream use. It is they who control how much of this water returns to streams and acquirers and the condition of the return flows. It is they who control western water. 


There is nothing malevolent about this fact. It is the outcome of a nineteenth-century bargain: Political leaders wanted rapid, economically viable human settlement of an arid region—possible only with large-scale development of the West’s limited water resources—and developers wanted a low-cost, secure supply of water to support their economic activities. States protected that development with generous water rights, and the federal government supported it with equally generous subsidies. From a economic perspective the results were spectacular—unmatched in any other arid part of the world. From an environmental perspective the results were disastrous in many locations. (pp. 266-267)


Finally, he tries to reconcile two alternate views of water in the west:

From this comfortable vantage point it is easy to criticize the unsustainable over expansion of Western irrigated agriculture that occurred during this century, and the overdevelopment of water resources that supported it. Yet in 1902 the passage of the Reclamation Act was a bold and progressive action. Making lands productive at a cost that average people could afford surely seemed like the right thing to do. And then, demonstrating that human ingenuity could harness a powerful resource like the Colorado River with the Hoover Dam — just the fact that we could do it—must have seemed extraordinary to most people in the desperate times of the 1930s. At the heart of the reclamation movement was an understandable desire for human betterment. But now, at the end of the twentieth century, those good intentions have long since been lost. Family farms turned into Cadillacs in the desert, to use Reisner’s image. Human betterment turned into human greed and folly.


In parts of the West it seems there are two different worlds and two apparently irreconcilable views regarding water. One is rooted in the tradition of the American West in which economic existence is possible only with active human control and use of water. This is a highly utilitarian tradition, in which the highest and best use of water is to make it possible for humans to live and thrive in arid environment—to make the desert bloom. In this view water exists for humans to control and use as necessary for their needs. …  The other sees water more as an amenity, essential in modest amounts for human survival, to be sure, but otherwise more valuable in the stream, the wetland, the lake, than in a ditch going to irrigate alfalfa or grow corn. It is a world concerned more about water as a source of recreation, as a source of aesthetic enjoyment, as a necessary ingredient supporting natural plant and animal life.
 


This apparent schism is exacerbated by the propensity of the adherents of either view to denigrate the other and to question the motives and intentions of those with whom they disagree. Traditional water users and their representatives become water ‘buffalos.’ Environmentalists become socialists or communists. Responsible, moderate voices searching for accommodation of interests are lost in the rhetoric. 


 
It has been my experience that many agricultural water users genuinely fear some of the changes that are occurring in the West: the region’s increasing urbanization and agriculture’s consequent loss of political power, the indifference of even antipathy some urban westerners express (especially in times of drought) toward irrigation use of water, the implications of increasing environmental values for their traditional way of life. They have long lived with an awareness for their vulnerability to the next natural disaster—drought, floods, tornadoes, hailstorms. They have lived in uneasy dependance on an agricultural economy that can be highly fickle and that is largely outside their ability to control. Understandably, they are unwilling to fall victim, as perhaps they see it, to other outside forces that seem to threaten their way of life. In reaction, perhaps, there is both a defensiveness and an aggressiveness that often serves to depend the division with other water interests. 
 
         
As I have come to better understand the role of irrigated agriculture in the West, I have developed a conviction that the changes that are necessary as we move into the twenty-first century should not come at the expense of this sector. Irrigated agriculture remains important to the west, as are ranching, dryland agriculture, logging, and mining. These roots the modern west still serve as the core of the West’s economy in many locations. They return a living from vast land areas that otherwise could not support human habitation. They provide the raw minerals that are essential to the way we all live. They make possible a diversity of lifestyles, cultures, and landscapes that are as much a part of the West as its mountains and its bright blue skies.


Development of the West proceeded on the basis of an understanding: control of resources for economic growth. It was a social contract that capitalized on individual initiative, the power of opportunity, and the value of public subsidies. As the West has changed, the need and value of this contract have largely disappeared. Yet its effects can still be seen. Charles Wilkinson included in his ‘the lords of yesterday’ the control over western water given to its early economic users. (pp. 287-290) 




MacDonnell, L.J., 1999. From reclamation to sustainability : water, agriculture, and the environment in the American West. University Press of Colorado.
 

Next Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an interstate water case (Tarrant v. Herrman) that may have large implications for interstate water allocation. The Tarrant Regional Water District (orange in the map to the right) services portions of the rapidly growing Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area, and filed an application with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB; then led by Rudolph J. Herrmann) to divert 310,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Red River tributaries in Oklahoma.

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana entered into the Red River Compact in 1980 to “provide an equitable apportionment among the signatory states of the water of the Red River and its tributaries” (purple hatched area in the figure to the right). Interstate compacts are authorized and approved by Congress, giving them the force of federal law. Tarrant alleges that the Compact allows them to divert Texas’ allotment of the Red River Water from Oklahoma, and that Oklahoma state laws restrict the export of water outside the state. Both the district court and the 10th Circut Court court found for OWRB.

Summaries of the case from: meSCOTUSblog, Cornell Law School

There are two questions at issue in this case that might have broader implications for interstate water allocations, and water markets.

Continue reading »

Late last Friday the BLM quietly released their record of decision (ROD) regarding public land available for oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. The ROD greatly limited the amount of land available for oil shale development – a reduction of 96% relative to the current baseline. A summary of oil shale can be found here, as well as a summary of the EIS (at least as it applies to Colorado) here.

 

This is a big deal. Oil shale is a rock containing solid bituminous material, known as kerogen, that when heated releases petroleum-like liquids. It should not be confused with ‘shale oil,’ the tight oil produced from hydraulic fracturing shale formations such as the Bakken in North Dakota. It is more similar to oil sands, such as those in Alberta that are the subject of the current controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline. And there is a lot of it in Colorado — some estimates place the amount recoverable reserves as high as one trillion barrels.

 

I’m a water guy and a native Coloradan, so I’m interested in how this relates to water usage in the state. Depending on the technique used, producing one barrel of oil shale could take between 1 and 12 barrels of water. The connection (or ‘nexus’ if you want to use a current buzzword) between water demand and oil shale production is a strong one and the water rights to produce oil shale are already in place — in many cases they are senior to many existing water users in the Colorado and Yampa River Basins.  Full-scale production could be a significant event for water users in western Colorado.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

I was involved in a multi-year multi-agency effort to document the changes the Sandy River, OR after the removal of the Marmot Dam. The process was likened to ‘stone soup’ – no one agency or group had the resources to fully carry out the research, but we all enthusiastically brought some resources. The challenge we had was to figure out the best way to divide up the work so we maximized the information gained without repeating each other’s work. Inspired by the work of Edward Tufte, I searched for a way to visually communicate a the plan – in time and space, emphasizing the type and amount of information collected.

The result was a figure that I initially presented at the River Restoration Northwest symposium in 2011 to try and communicate a method to display and optimize a monitoring effort.

I was encouraged to put those ideas into a short journal article, and the result is the article that was just published in River Research and Applications.

 

I also included, as online supplemental material, an Excel spreadsheet application that allows the user to create a figure similar to that shown above.

 

I have just recently started to subscribe to updates from Matthew Garcia’s blog: Hydro-Logic (hat tip to Michael Campagna – @WaterWired on Twitter – for the point out on his blog WaterWired).

 

I highly recommend checking out Matthew’s blog for a semi-regular summary of reports covering both science and policy.

 

 

Tagged with:
 

There are at least two things that need to happen in order to produce oil from oil shale in Colorado: oil prices much stay at a level that makes it commercially viable, and because much of the resource lies under federal (BLM) land, federal approval for leases is needed. If commercial oil shale production were to begin in Colorado, it could have significant impacts on existing water users. A background on the basics of oil shale and water resources in Colorado can be found in this post

 

We are nearing a significant point in the second of the two criteria – a decision on federal land leasing. In 2005, the Secretary of the Interior directed that a Programatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) be conducted on changing BLM land use plans to foster oil shale development in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. The 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) amended the BLM plans to make 2 million acres of BLM land available for leasing to develop oil shale. This decision was challenged, and in 2009, the Secretary of the Interior directed another PEIS. The PEIS was completed in November 2012 (summarized here), and a ROD was anticipated in January 2013.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

From a water resources / water allocation perspective, I see two interesting issues in North Dakota: water for oil production by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and unresolved Indian water rights claims. A brief summary North Dakota water law and current issues is provided here, and described below.

Continue reading »

The Journal of the American Water Resources Association has just published a manuscript of mine that reports on work of mine in Alaska over the past few years. The National Park Service was concerned about bank erosion near some of their facilities on the Toklat River in Denali National Park. The USGS (me) was asked to provide a geomorphic analysis of the river and give an assessment of the shifting braided planform of the Toklat.

Continue reading »

Tagged with:
 

As this year’s class of Nicholas School MEM students begins to look for research topics, I am offering a suggestion for anyone interested in water and energy. The interaction of unconventional oil resources, specifically oil shale, and scarce surface water resources in western Colorado set up a very interesting conflict over water rights. The project allows the motivated MEM student the opportunity to delve into western water law, conditional water rights, agricultural-municipal-industrial water disputes, Colorado River issues, unconventional oil resources, federal land management, mining law, and more.

 

See a full description here

Tagged with:
 

Utah Governor protesting Oil Shale EIS

On January 17, 2013, in Energy / Water, Oil Shale, by Charles Podolak

The E&E News is reporting that Utah Governor Gary Herbert is opposing the proposed new oil shale leasing policies by the BLM. An EIS completed in 2008 under the Bush administration established over 2 million acres of BLM-managed land as available for lease application. The recommended alternative in the current EIS proposes a 65% reduction in the number of acres available, to less than 700,000 acres. In Colorado, the most production portion of the Green River Basin oil shale formation, the acreage reduction is an even larger 92%.

I have a summary of the EIS, as it pertains to Colorado, here.

Tagged with:
 
Nicholas School of the Environment | Box 90328 | Duke University | Durham, NC 27708 YouTube Twitter Facebook Nickipedia iTunesU

how to contact us > | login to the site >