Ron Bishop's Legacy Will Live On

By Ann Bleed, Groundwater Foundation Board Member

Only a few months ago the Groundwater Foundation awarded the Maurice Kremer Groundwater Achievement Award to Ron Bishop, the manager of the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD) from its beginning in 1972 until last year, when he retired. The much deserved award did not come too soon; Ron Bishop died January 13, 2014 after a long battle with cancer. With his death Nebraska lost a true pioneer in the water world.

Throughout his tenure as manager of the CPNRD Ron provided innovative leadership for not only the district, but for the entire Platte River valley and the State as a whole. In the early years of the NRD, flood control was the major concern. One of the district’s first actions was to build a large flood control project and since that time, over 30 flood control projects have been built by the NRD. The largest project was estimated to prevent $24 million of damages in one flood alone (Know your NRD).

In 1987, two years after the legislature passed the Groundwater Management and Protection Act, under Ron’s leadership the CPNRD voluntarily established a Groundwater Management Area to manage both groundwater quality and quantity. To establish the rules the CPNRD met with farmers, crop consultants, fertilizer industry representatives and others to determine how best to implement the controls. To assure controls are implemented only when needed, the CPNRD established ground-water-level and nitrate level triggers specific to each area of the district, which if exceeded, would trigger controls on groundwater use. To monitor groundwater levels, the district installed 575 monitoring wells, which are monitored every spring and fall to determine groundwater level changes and every third year to monitor nitrate levels.

In addition, farmers throughout the CPNRD, are recruited to work with the NRD in using the best management practices to demonstrate that nitrates can be managed efficiently and effectively while maintaining crop yields. The producer receives weekly irrigation assistance on one field and a complete evaluation of his or her irrigation system. In return, the producer is expected to share the experience with other producers and consider improved irrigation techniques. The CPNRD also provides cost-share funds for tools needed to implement best management practices. Because research indicated that most farmers did not know how much water they were using during irrigation, to simply make producers aware of their water usage, the Board also requires producers in some areas to monitor the amount of groundwater they pump.

At first there was some resistance to these controls (partly because the irrigators had to pay for groundwater testing for nitrates), Ron told me, but with time, the “sharp” operators realized that following the rules resulted in economic gains that outweighed the additional costs, including the costs of the testing. Seeing the benefits, other producers soon willingly adopted the controls.

In the early days of the program it was not uncommon to see greater than 200 lbs per acre, in some cases up to 300 lbs per acre, of nitrates applied. Now the typical application is less than 150 lbs per acre. As a result of these declines in fertilizer use, the nitrate levels in the district are starting to decline. Until the CPNRD Groundwater Quality Management Program was adopted, the nitrate level in the high nitrate area of the district was increasing at a rate of about 0.5 ppm (parts per million) per year to 19.24 ppm. Now there is an average drop of .25 ppm nitrate per year and over the 14 years of implementation, nitrate levels in the groundwater have been lowered from average levels of 19.24 ppm to 15.05 ppm.

In the 1990s concerns over declining stream flows in the Platte River began to increase. In part these concerns were triggered by the need to provide river flows to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act, but there were also concerns about declines in summer flows for surface water irrigators and for municipal wells that relied on Platte River water for recharge. In response the CPNRD under Ron’s leadership applied for and obtained some of the state’s first surface water instream flow rights to provide water for fish and wildlife.

As concerns over the impacts of groundwater use rose, Ron, in what at the time was a very proactive and insightful move, proposed to the State DNR that a cooperative study of how groundwater well pumping impacted the Platte River should be developed. The resulting Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) was initiated in 1998 (http://www.cpnrd.org/COHYST.html). Participants included other Platte River NRDs, the State DNR, surface water irrigation and power districts, and other stakeholders. The collaborative research and modeling developed by COHYST are now the key instruments for determining how wells and other water uses in the area impact stream flows along the Platte River. COHYST is also relied on by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for determining Nebraska’s compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act and by the State DNR and the NRDs. Ron also represented groundwater irrigators in the development of the Platte River Recovery and Implementation Program.   

With the passage of the Integrated Water Management law in 2004, a large portion of the CPNRD was declared to be either fully or overappropriated. As required by the new law the CPNRD, working with the State DNR, developed an Integrated Management Plan, which placed a moratorium on new or expanded consumptive uses of water by wells and on new irrigated acres in areas determined to be fully or over-appropriated, required certification of existing irrigated acres, placed restriction on municipal and industrial uses, and in the overappropriated area, took actions and implemented rules to reduce stream flow depletions from groundwater use.

To assist producers and the State comply with the new rules and the Endangered Species Act Ron’s NRD initiated the State’s first and only water banking program, funded by the district, and initiated a cooperative program with several surface water irrigation canals to retire surface water rights, switch surface water irrigators to groundwater wells. The program allowed the canal districts to rehabilitate their canals, which had fallen in disrepair; benefitted the irrigators by switching them to groundwater wells, which can be operated more efficiently and offer a more stable water supply; and benefitted the flows in the river.

Ron was a soft spoken man. During hearings before the Department of Water Resources, his soft-even voice often made this listener quite sleepy, but he was a tireless and effective worker for the CPNRD and the interests of groundwater users. He was truly a force to be recognized during debates over water policy, but worked well with many kinds of people. And, I know from personal experience Ron was capable of tremendous kindness to the people he worked with, even when they did not agree with his point of view. When I last talked with Ron, only a few days before he died, he not only was still discussing water issues, but significantly, was asking with sincere interest about how other people in the water world were doing. Ron Bishop’s spirit and legacy will color the future of Nebraska’s water for many years to come.

 

What if Your Tap Water Wasn't Safe?

by Jennifer Wemhoff, Program Manager

Drinking water made headlines this morning, and not in a good way. Nearly 200,000 people in West Virginia are being told not to use their tap water for any purpose, due to a chemical spill in the Elk River that contaminated the Kanawha Valley water system.

The chemical spilled was 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol, which is harmful if swallowed, and is used to wash coal before it goes to market (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/us/west-virginia-contaminated-water/index.html?hpt=hp_t2). 

This story is another reminder of how much we all take our water supply for granted - we turn on the tap and don't give it another thought. What if the water coming from that tap suddenly wasn't safe? Water infrastructure is vital to our everyday lives and our wellbeing, not to mention a foundation for our communities and our way of life.

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the infrastructure investment needed across the U.S. by 2020 is $3.6 trillion (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/drinking-water/) and gives the overall infrastructure a D on its national report card.

 

Clearly there are issues that need addressing. While the incident in West Viriginia isn't specifically related to infrastructure, it highlights the vital role safe drinking water has in our lives. What if we suddenly had to rely on bottled water to drink? Or water supply tankers for our household water use?

 

Have you or your community faced a situation when the tap water was unsafe? How did you handle it?

Keeping Groundwater Supplies Clean During the Winter Season

By Heather Voorman, The Groundwater Foundation

We all breathe a sigh of relief when we see the road maintenance crew salt, sand and shovel out the roads after a winter storm.  The truth is however, too much road salt can contaminate groundwater supplies.   So what can be done to make roads safe without harming the environment?

How do road salts contaminate groundwater?

First, it’s important to understand how road salts contaminate groundwater. When the snow melts and spring rains come, all the salt that accumulated over the winter ends up in storm water catch basins and streams.  The salt that is carried to surface water can harm fish and plants.  The salt can also damage vegetation and soil along the shoulders of roads, causing erosion issues. 

The salt can get into underground drinking water supplies by infiltrating the groundwater and contaminating wells.  Salt can remain in groundwater for decades.  If the salt does get into groundwater supplies used for drinking water it can affect the taste of the water, affect individuals with hypertension, and corrode plumbing infrastructure.  

Lowering salt applications make roadways safer.

Although salt is used because many municipalities believe it is one of the only ways to ensure roadways are safe, there are techniques, equipment and chemicals that require less salt to be used and actually make roads safer.  In Kamloops, BC, Canada following the change to a low-salt application technique, the city saw an 8% decrease in accidents.  Similarly, in Idaho transportation officials switched from heavy salt and sand applications to liquid magnesium chloride on one stretch of road and saw an 83% reduction in accidents in that area.  This sort of success story probably won’t happen in every case, but by utilizing lower salt application techniques, roadways become safer and the environment becomes healthier.

What can you do?

Here are some ideas you can recommend to your local municipality to protect groundwater supplies from salt contamination:

1.     Use the right amount: The most important factor to remember when applying salt is the surface temperature.  When roads are warmer, less salt is needed.  Municipalities might consider purchasing inexpensive infrared thermometers for spreading trucks.

2.     Only use it where it’s needed: Make sure salt is being used in areas where it is most needed.  Hills, curves, bridges, etc. need more salt than other areas of the road.  There are also times when salt won’t help melt ice on roads.  If the surface temperature is below ~10º F, a road won’t benefit from salt.  Instead, use another chemical suited for lower temperatures. 

3.     Apply early!: Don’t wait until the snow starts falling to apply salt.  It takes more salt to melt snow that has accumulated than it does to prevent the accumulation.  Brine can be applied days before a weather event in the right conditions. 

You can also use these techniques when you apply salt on your own driveway and sidewalks so you can stay safe while keeping groundwater supplies clean!

[source: www.epa.gov]

 

Water Wars: Are Groundwater and Surface Water One Resource?

By Ann Bleed, Groundwater Foundation Board Member

This is a story about Nebraska, but I have reason to believe, the lessons Nebraskans are learning are pertinent to all United States. In Nebraska, as in the rest of the United States, the use of surface water started early. It wasn’t long, particularly in the arid west, that the adage, “Whiskey’s for drinkin, water’s for fightin” became true. Yet, in time we developed rules and surface water storage reservoirs to tame, if not eliminate, the water wars.

Although the use of ground water for domestic wells and some irrigation along streams started early, it wasn’t until the middle of the twentieth century, with the invention of methods to drill and pump from deep wells and the innovative development of the center pivot, that ground water use began to develop. Again, in Nebraska as elsewhere, ground water helped slake our ever increasing demand for water and quell the water wars.

For a time, with large surface and ground water reservoirs at our disposal, we in Nebraska truly lived the good life. Even in the dry years of the 1970s, squabbles among water users were few. Many believed with our endless ground water supplies, we had solved our water problems. This myth was bolstered by the strong belief in people’s minds that surface water and ground water are connected. Even state law did not recognize a connection. Gradually, however, our streamflows, and worse yet the alluvial aquifers fed by stream flows, started to decline. Surface water users, with permitted water rights, environmentalists, started complaining that ground water pumping was drying up Nebraska’s surface water supplies.

With the threat of law suits, from both within and outside the state, slowly Nebraskans and Nebraska law began to take small steps toward recognizing that surface water and ground water are indeed connected. But the politics were, and still are, such that neither the courts nor the legislature seem inclined to tackle the problem. Hence the water wars have started again and seem to grow, in proportion to our growing water demands.

Yet, I see signs of hope. We are slowly starting to recognize that our surface water and ground water supplies are not only connected, but in many instances are simply different manifestations of a single resource. In addition, although in the early 1900s, Robert Willis, one of Nebraska’s early water engineers, recognized the importance of surface water irrigation for maintaining alluvial aquifers and streamflow during the irrigation season, we are just now starting to actively manage some of our surface water canals for ground water recharge. And, better yet, where these management schemes are being realized, the “fightin” words between surface water users and ground water users is beginning to disappear.

The importance of the realization that managing interconnected surface water and ground water as one resource was recently demonstrated at a water users task force, The Water Funding Task Force was established by the legislature to develop much needed funding for water research, management, and infrastructure. A battle between surface water users and ground water users over who should allocate the funds was widely expected to block any consensus on a recommendation for the legislature. That did not happen. Why? After much education and discussion among task force members, the task force recognized that ground water and surface water are not only connected, but where there are these connections are simply different manifestations of one resource. Also, and importantly, they came to understand that if we are to sustain the water uses that provide Nebraska with the good life, we must work together to manage this precious resource as one supply. With this understanding a consensus, which few expected, was achieved. Perhaps, the rest of the state can learn from the task force and instead of funding lawsuits, we can stop “fightin”, and use our resources to solve our mutual water resource problems.