Arkansas - UNC - Inquiries into Buy and Dry_May2008

Home Browse Search

Two sets of questions have been identified in earlier inquiries and the Statewide Water Supply Initiative discussions which are both important in considering "how to do it right" and how to reduce uncertainties about how to try new arrangements. COST COMPARISONS: MISSING PIECES: There are persistent questions about cost comparisons of new forms versus "buy-and-dry", from the municipal buyer/lessee/partner perspective. Elected officials working with constituents are the only ones who can apply values to the options available, and the Roundtable outreach programs may address that. And, municipalities or water providers can internally do the needed comparison of costs for water acquisition on a "pay-as-you-go" basis using the new forms, and not using traditional bonded indebtedness to cover acquisition, or other means of funding, and indeed each water provider will be in a different fiscal situation and face different future needs and financial situations. We certainly hope some useful disclosure can be made. Another area of cost remains quite opaque and potentially very important in cost comparisons. That is the costs ofbuy-and-dry where revegetation to modern standards with resistance to changing conditions is required. Experience so far has not been generally disclosed. Where buyers of water are required to undertake lengthy and uncertain management of soils which have been profoundly changed by more than a century of irrigation, costs may be higher than under traditional easier standards. The presumption of simple conversion to dry-land farming may also warrant further inquiry into feasibility and success under new conditions of input costs and changing markets, and under conditions of radically shrinking farm family numbers on the land. As competition for agricultural water grows more intense, lands irrigated with more and more junior water rights maybe affected by transfers, and these lands maybe more difficult to convert to other uses. Economically, it makes sense for less reliable water sources to be used on lesser- quality land, and for lower-reliability water supplies to be used as supplemental for crops or forage which may not depend on irrigation as much as others (notably corn and vegetables and fruit). This lower-productivity land maybe easier to convert to dry-land farming or range uses, and that could affect over-all management. It would help everyone to know more about this issue. So, we propose a workshop process with an invited group of specialists from CSU, Co-Operative Extension and the Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the State Department of Agriculture and Central Plains Irrigation Association members from Kansas State and Nebraska to help frame and consider these issues and report out a short review of what can be said. Water providers engaged in revegetation would be very welcome to participate and contribute. CROP MANAGEMENT ISSUES: The second technical set of issues identified concerns the need for BMPs or similar guidance on how to implement programs of rotational crop management and interruptible supply contracts through good crop rotation designs. Because these programs have not been used in our area, there is no intentional experience, though there is some relevant knowledge from unintended experiments in irrigation suspension or termination for other reasons. We would also hold a workshop with participation from the same set of expertise-based agencies and institutions to assess what would help in development of a set of recommendations for farmers and groups of farmers to consider in designing crop rotations to maximize long-term revenues and soil productivity using the new forms of transfer. Some knowledge of typical sequences for safe 12