Great Lakes States Wary of Western Water Designs

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson recently hit a sensitive nerve among some northern states when he said water rich states should share their abundant supplies with states less favored with water supplies. A Democratic presidential candidate, Richardson made the statement while campaigning in Nevada. It is a statement tailored to bring joy to the hearts of Nevada officials, a state where Richardson hopes to show strength in the state’s Jan. 9 primary.

Richardson told the Las Vegas Sun that if elected, he would begin regional water discussions to work out strategies for northern-tier states to share their abundant resources with parched southwestern states.
“I want a national water policy,” Richardson told the paper. “We need a dialogue between states to deal with issues like water conservation, water reuse technology, water delivery and water production. States like Wisconsin are awash in water.”

The interregional water transfer concept is not new. Richardson’ statement, however, attracted special attention, even notoriety, since he spoke as a presidential contender and a governor of a western state. Some officials in northern states, especially Great Lakes states, perceived his statement as a threat to take seriously, reflecting a position shared among western states.

They point out that western states do not have a monopoly on drought. Drought has hit Lake Superior which recently recorded an all-time low; all the upper Great Lakes, in fact, are significantly below their longtime average levels. Yet the Great Lakes remain an attractive resource; the lakes including their connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River contain about 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water.
In a previous visit to Nevada, Richardson announced, if elected, he would create a new Cabinet post focused on water issues.


Prescott Valley Auctions Effluent

The Town of Prescott Valley sold 2,724 acre-feet of effluent for more than $67 million during a two-day auction on Oct. 29-30. The town awarded the effluent to the highest bidder—Water Property Investors LLC, a New York-based water-resource-investment firm—for $24,650 per acre-foot. Water Property Investors can re-sell or use the water to meet state water supply requirements for new subdivision developments. Local and national bidders responded to the auction.

The town’s consultants, WestWater Research LLC, arranged a price-floor bid process. This involved the town setting a minimum-bid price by negotiating a $53-million agreement with Aqua Capital Management, a Nebraska-based private equity fund. If the town did not receive a higher bid during the two-day auction, Aqua Capital would have got the effluent at $19,500 per acre-foot. The purchased rights are expected to be able to support as many as 12,000 new homes in Prescott Valley where population is projected to increase by 55 percent from 2005 to 2025.

As West Withers East May Bloom

As if western farmers were not already confronting enough problems, what with drought and growing urban water demands, a Sept. 22 New York Times Op-Ed piece argues the nation’s agricultural production would be more sustainable with “a return to using the land and water of the East, which dominated agriculture in the United States into the 20th century.” The article is titled, “Let the East Bloom Again.”
The authors, Richard T. McNider and John R. Christy, professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, note that up to the mid-1900s much of the US food and fiber came from east of the Mississippi River. The authors say this eastern dominance of agriculture came to an end by 1980, destroyed by western irrigation and improvements in transportation.

They claim returning agricultural production to the Eastern United States under irrigation would increase efficiency and result in environmental benefits. They say, for example, western farmers apply three to four feet of water per acre to grow a good crop, whereas eastern farmers, blessed with heavier rainfall, only need a few inches of irrigated water per acre.

The authors also point out that since the rivers in the East are very large and regional irrigation demands rather slight, only a small amount of river water would be pumped to support agriculture. For example, although the Tennessee River has twice the natural flow of the Colorado River, less than 1 percent of its water is consumed for various uses; the Colorado River is depleted by the time it reaches Mexico.
Also they say expanding irrigation in the East would not deplete its rivers to the extent that western rivers have been depleted. For example, they state that three percent of the Alabama River would support one million irrigated acres whereas nearly 30 percent of the Colorado River is needed to irrigate the same acreage.

Whatever water is withdrawn and stored in the East would be imperceptible compared to the West. The West needs huge reservoirs costing billions of dollars and taking years to fill, whereas in the East water can be stored in inexpensive, off-stream storage ponds without damming rivers.

To meet the cost of a regional shift in agricultural production the authors look to the same benefactors who were so generous to the West — the federal government. Such a strategy, they argue, would “show the world that irrigation can be done sustainably, by irrigating where water is plentiful.”

Homeland Security’s Border River
Environmental Record Mixed

The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with securing the U.S. border. Its prime strategy in undertaking this responsibility along the U.S-Mexico border is to fence areas between the two countries. As the agency plans and builds fences along the Arizona-Mexico border, river issues inevitably arise, with security priorities and environmental values both needing consideration. With this situation comes the potential for conflict but also cooperation as is demonstrated by the following stories.

Border Fencing Project to Proceed

Efforts to halt construction of border fences and barriers through the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area were thwarted when Michael Chertoff, homeland security secretary, waived several environmental laws, thereby bypassing a federal judge’s restraining order temporally blocking the project.
Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed an administrative appeal with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. arguing that the Bureau of Land Management acted improperly when allowing fence construction within the SPRNCA. They claimed that a fence built across arroyos feeding the San Pedro River would result in erosion, sediment buildup and might even shift the riverbed. They say this, in turn, could adversely affect cottonwood-willow woodlands and the movement of jaguar, ocelot and coati that roam the border region.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle concluded that the organizations convincingly demonstrated that environmental damage could result if the project is completed as planned. Also, Judge Huvelle was unimpressed with BLM’s assessment of the environmental effects of the project, noting that it was completed in three weeks without opportunity for public comment.

The immediate issue is the environmental consequences of a planned wall of up to 17 feet high and some vehicle barriers along a two-mile stretch through the SPRNCA. The broader intent of the appeal is to pressure Homeland Security to undertake an environmental impact statement reporting on the overall impacts of the fencing project along the Arizona border. Such a study was done in conjunction with fencing along the Texas border.

Chertoff’s action renders the judge’s decision moot. The 2005 Secure Fence Act that mandated the border fence granted him the authority to waive the laws.

Project Restores Riverbed, Secures Border

In what might seem an unlikely partnership, environmentalists and security officials are concerned about the blighted environmental conditions along the 23-mile Colorado River bed dividing Mexico and the United States, near Yuma.

Environmentalists say the dense, overgrown and invasive vegetation within the riverbed crowds out native mesquites and willows needed to provide crucial habitat for wildlife and endangered birds including the Yuma clapper rail, California black rail and bald eagle.

Security officials are concerned because the riverbed, thick with vegetative growth, offers good hiding spots for those seeking to avoid the notice of law enforcement authorities. The degraded environmental conditions have created a high-crime area where smuggling, banditry and sexual assault occur within the overgrowth of concealing vegetation.

Environmentalists desire a return to natural conditions, rich with native vegetation and birds and wildlife; Border Patrol officials want a safety zone where increased visibility will discourage illegal activities.
In what must be a highly unusual description of an environmental restoration project, Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area officials, focusing on the border protection angle, described the project as a “security channel” and “an innovation homeland security” in efforts to attract support. They were highly successful, gaining support from a wide range of agencies and organizations, from Environmental Defense and the Sonoran Institute to the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security.

Expected to cost between $7 million to $9 million, the project would restore an approximately 2.2-mile segment of river including 435 acres of wetlands. Fund raising is expected to take about a year, with restoration work to begin within two years.

Water Center Home -- AWR Home -- Search