Addressing Changes in Regional Groundwater Resources: Lessons from the High Plains Aquifer

Report of the AGI Critical Issues Forum October 27–28, 2016 Golden, Colorado

Hosted by the Colorado School of Mines Payne Institute for Earth Resources

american With support from AGI’s geosciences AGIinstitute connecting earth, science, and people

Addressing Changes in Regional Groundwater Resources: Lessons from the High Plains Aquifer Report of the AGI Critical Issues Forum October 27–28, 2016, Golden, Colorado

Written by Timothy Oleson, Ph.D.

Contents 2 Critical Issues Forum Planning Committee 2 Forum Agenda, October 27 and 28, 2016 3 Foreword 5 Addressing Changes in Regional Groundwater Resources: Lessons from the High Plains Aquifer 24 Speaker Biographies 29 About the American Geosciences Institute (AGI) 30 Selected AGI Projects 31 Critical Issues Program

© 2017 American Geosciences Institute isbn: 978-1974166640 American Geosciences Institute 4220 King Street Alexandria, VA 22302-1507 U.S.A. Phone: +1 (703) 379-2480 Fax: +1 (703) 379-7563 [email protected] www.americangeosciences.org For more information on Critical Issues Forums, go to www.americangeosciences.org/policy/ci-forums.

Design by Brenna Tobler, AGI Cover background image © Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock.com, pipeline image ©Cecilia Lim HM/Shutterstock.com

AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 1 Critical Issues Forum Planning Committee

Jean Bahr, President, American Geosciences Institute Rex Buchanan, Director Emeritus, Kansas Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Executive Director, American Geosciences Institute Foundation Susan Stover, Outreach Manager, Kansas Geological Survey David Wunsch, Director/State Geologist, Delaware Geological Survey

Forum Agenda, October 27 and 28, 2016

October 27 • Kyle E. Murray, Hydrogeologist, Oklahoma Welcome and Introductions Geological Survey, University of Oklahoma • Paul Johnson, President, Colorado School • David Wunsch, Director, Delaware Geological of Mines Survey, University of Delaware (moderator) • Allyson Anderson Book, Executive Forum Overview and Moderated Discussion Director, AGI • John E. McCray, Professor and Head, Civil and • Jean Bahr, President, AGI Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines Overview of Western and High Plains • Wendy Harrison, Professor, Geology and Groundwater Issues and Discussion Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Invited Keynote: Mines (moderator) Regional Aquifer Changes in the West Cocktail Reception, Colorado School of • Sharon B. Megdal, Director, University of Mines Geology Museum Arizona Water Resources Research Center Dinner and After-Dinner Keynote What is the Science Telling us about • Merri Lisa Trigilio, Director and Producer — Regional Aquifers in the West? Written on Water • William M. Alley, Director of Science and Technology, National Ground Water Association October 28 Policy and Regulatory Overview of Thinking Beyond the High Plains Aquifer Western Aquifers • James Eklund, Director, Colorado Water Water and Negotiation in the West Conservation Board • Susan Stover, Outreach Manager, Kansas Economic and Social Importance of Geological Survey, University of Kansas Western Aquifers Invited keynote: Groundwater Policy in the • Nick Brozovic, Director of Policy, Water for Face of Climate Change Food Global Institute, University of Nebraska • Jason Gurdak, Associate Professor, San The High Plains Aquifer — Francisco State University Panel Talks and Discussions Lessons, Reports, and Revelations: What Have We Learned? Perspectives from Kansas and Nebraska • Elizabeth Eide, Director, Board on Earth • Jim Butler, Senior Scientist, Kansas Geological Sciences and Resources, The National Survey, University of Kansas Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and • Ann Bleed, Former Director, Nebraska Medicine (moderator) Department of Natural Resources • Wendy J. Harrison, Professor, Geology and • Rex Buchanan, Director Emeritus, Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Kansas Geological Survey, University of Mines (moderator) Kansas (moderator) Concluding Remarks Perspectives from Texas and Oklahoma • Jean Bahr, President, AGI • Steven D. Walthour, General Manager, North • Michael Walls, Director, Payne Institute for Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Texas Earth Resources, Colorado School of Mines

2 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Foreword

he American Geosciences Institute (AGI) represents and serves the geosci- ence community by providing collaborative leadership and information to Tconnect Earth, science, and people. We created the Critical Issues Forum series as a platform to reach a broader audience of decision makers, including those at the regional, state, and local levels, and to improve public understanding and perception of the geosciences. I am pleased to present this report summarizing the stimulating presentations and discussions from the second AGI Critical Issues Forum, Addressing Regional Groundwater Resources: Lessons from the High Plains Aquifer. Much has been written about the High Plains Aquifer, due to its critical importance as the major source of groundwater for irrigation in the High Plains region of the United States. This aquifer spans eight states and supports the people and livelihood of region, while also maintaining an agricultural base that is responsible for nearly $35 billion in crops annually. The two-day meeting facilitated lively discussion on common groundwater challenges, resource management approaches, and communication strategies in the High Plains Aquifer region. The forum presentations and dialogue focused on two major questions: • How have experts and stakeholders in High Plains Aquifer (HPA) states addressed depletion of regional groundwater resources? • Are there lessons learned or best practices from the HPA and/or other aquifers? On behalf of AGI and the broader geoscientific community, I extend my sincere thanks to all who participated in the Forum and look forward to hosting other vital conversations highlighting issues that are critical to geoscience and society. Sincere regards,

Allyson Anderson Book Executive Director, American Geosciences Institute

AGI thanks the following organizations for their support of the Critical Issues Forum.

AIPG

1 9 6 3

SM

NGWThe Groundwater A Association

AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 3 The aquifer supplies water for about a quarter of U.S. agricultural production, more than 40 percent of U.S. feedlot beef cattle, and drinking water supplies for 82 percent of the people who live within its boundaries.

Crop circles in Finney County, SW Kansas, taken June 24, 2001. Corn, wheat, and sorghum, plus fallow fields. Credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team Addressing Changes in Regional Groundwater Resources: Lessons from the High Plains Aquifer

© Shutterstock.com/Cecelia Lim HM

ook out the window of an airplane while in flight over the U.S. High Plains L and odds are good — particularly during the growing season — that you’ll see swaths of green-hued squares and circles standing out amid other- wise dusty brown landscapes. On the ground, these geometric patchworks are clustered fields of farmland and pasture that both provide a living for many of the people who call these regions home and feed much of the country. These verdant patches are made possible mainly by the presence of groundwater, the lifeblood of irrigation systems in the High Plains region.

Widespread use of groundwater for and fueled increasing national health, irrigation in the United States emerged prosperity and food security. Today, in the early- and mid-20th century, with roughly 11 percent of U.S. cropland withdrawals growing for decades sub- is located in the High Plains Aquifer sequent as more — and higher capacity (HPA) region [Figure 1], and the aqui- — wells were drilled. Access to abun- fer supplies water for about a quarter dant groundwater allowed farmers to of U.S. agricultural production, more grow more food on more land and than 40 percent of U.S. feedlot beef to better withstand crop-withering cattle, and drinking water supplies droughts. The ensuing agricultural for 82 percent of the people who live boom fed a growing U.S. population within its boundaries. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 5 High Plains Aquifer

Groundwater depletion (in cubic kilometers, 1900-2008)

-40 to -10 10 to 25

-10 to 0 25 to 50

0 to 3 50 to 150

3 to 10 150 to 400

Figure 1: Map of total groundwater depletions (in cubic km) for major aquifers in the contiguous U.S. from 1900-2008. Red 150-400; dark orange 50-150; light orange 25-50; dark yellow 10-25; light yellow 3-10; green 0-3; blues indicate net recharge. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5079

But along with the prosperity driven brought renewed attention to the fate of by groundwater have come signifi- the country’s most prominent ground- cant concerns about undesired impacts water supplies. arising from our reliance on the HPA and other aquifers. In particular, due to heavy use and slow recharge of Along with the prosperity the aquifers, groundwater levels have driven by groundwater have declined dramatically in many areas come significant concerns [Figure 1], forcing shifts in agricultural practices, jeopardizing the livelihoods about undesired impacts of individuals — and whole towns in arising from our reliance on some instances — and causing collateral the HPA and other aquifers. damage to the environment. Concerns over groundwater depletion are not limited to the U.S. — major aquifers in The American Geosciences Insti- China and India have experienced high tute (AGI) — with generous support levels of depletion, for example. Nei- from AGI’s Center for Geoscience and ther are these concerns new. Domesti- Society, the Payne Institute for Earth cally, however, recent severe droughts Resources at the Colorado School of in California and in parts of the High Mines, and AGI member societies, Plains, combined with outlooks based including the Geological Society of on groundwater monitoring data, have America, the American Institute of 6 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Aquifer: An underground body of porous materials, such as sand, gravel, or fractured rock, filled with water and capable of supplying useful quantities of water to a well or spring. — From https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha747/pdf/definition.pdf.

Professional Geologists, the Associa- The High Plains Aquifer tion of American State Geologists, the The High Plains Aquifer stretches International Association of Hydroge- across roughly 175,000 square miles ologists – U.S. National Chapter, the (454,000 square kilometers), making it National Association of State Boards the largest aquifer system in the U.S. of Geology (ASBOG), and the National [Figure 1], and underlies parts of eight Ground Water Association — recently states. The aquifer system comprises convened an open meeting of expert buried layers of sand, silt, clay and speakers and interested individuals gravel that were deposited as alluvial from academia, consulting, professional sediments, dune sands and valley fill societies, and local, state and federal east of the Rocky Mountains starting agencies to discuss the use, monitoring, about 30 million years ago. By far the and management of groundwater in the single largest unit in the HPA is the United States. The assembled group at unconsolidated Ogallala Formation, this second-ever Critical Issues Forum deposited between about 18 million focused on experiences from the High and 4 million years ago by a shifting Plains Aquifer (HPA) region. network of rivers and streams that The HPA was chosen as the forum carried sediments from the mountains. emphasis not only because it features The depth to the top of the aqui- prominently in U.S. agriculture and fer differs quite a bit depending on faces significant current and future location, ranging from just below the challenges, but also because — as it surface to about 400 feet (122 meters), extends beneath multiple states — there as does its thickness, which ranges are a variety of groundwater manage- from less than 50 to about 1,200 feet ment practices in use across the High (< 15 to 365 meters). These varying Plains that offer ample opportunities characteristics and the diverse geology for comparison, information sharing, result in an aquifer with a complex and learning. three-dimensional shape — hardly the The aim of the forum was to foster uniform underground lake that’s often, open and honest conversation about incorrectly, envisioned — which means lessons learned in the region. This that water doesn’t necessarily flow eas- report provides an overview of the key ily between all parts of the aquifer, and lessons and ideas that emerged during that access to groundwater resources is the forum, and outlines approaches limited in many places. These factors identified as being potentially benefi- also affect the cost and effort involved cial in helping states and municipalities in obtaining groundwater for irrigation fulfill their own designated groundwa- and drinking-water supplies, as well ter management goals. as how long local resources will be AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 7 Kansas total Counties overlying the (4,000 Mgal/day) High Plains Aquifer (3,085 Mgal/day)

A A ll U ll other uses

ses

All Uses

All other uses

Irrigation Irrigation

Groundwater Surface water Figure 2: Water Use in Kansas (2010). Groundwater provides 80% of all the water used in the state, and 96% of all water used in counties overlying the High Plains Aquifer. The vast majority of this water is used for irrigation. Credit: AGI/Ben Mandler. Data source: U.S. Geological Survey available, particularly in areas where Agriculture and large amounts of groundwater are removed from the aquifer. Aquifer Depletion Recharge of the aquifer from rain- High Plains Aquifer groundwater is fall, the main counterbalance to with- pumped for municipal drinking sup- drawals and discharges, also varies plies and for other domestic, commer- but is low throughout most of the HPA cial and industrial uses, but agriculture region. Precipitation is actually fairly is far and away the largest consumer uniform from north to south across [Figure 2]. Irrigation in the High Plains the High Plains, increasing moder- was first implemented in the late 1800s, ately from west to east. But recharge although extensive pumping of HPA rates differ considerably, from 100 groundwater for agriculture began to 200 millimeters per year beneath only in the 1930s and 1940s in the after- Nebraska’s Sand Hills in the northern math of the Dust Bowl-era droughts High Plains to 10 millimeters or less that devastated farmland in parts of per year across most of the central and the region [Figure 3], particularly in southern High Plains regions. This is the central and southern High Plains. due in part to the greater depth to Since then, and combined with more the top of the aquifer, meaning water favorable climatic conditions in the lat- percolating down from the surface ter half of the 20th century that brought has a longer distance to travel, and rainfall at rates above long-term aver- to rising average temperatures from ages, groundwater has contributed north to south, which drive increased substantially to the intensification of evaporation. The northern parts of the agriculture in the High Plains. Roughly HPA also receive more runoff from the 30 to 40 percent of High Plains cropland Rocky Mountains. is now irrigated. It has also spurred 8 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Figure 3: Farmland in Kansas devastated by wind erosion during the Dust Bowl. Credit: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

shifts in cultivation, allowing crops But the prolonged history of ground- with relatively high water demands, water consumption has taken a toll. like corn, to be grown over wider areas The total volume of water in the HPA than would otherwise be feasible. prior to its development for groundwa- Today, major crops grown in the ter pumping is thought to have been High Plains include corn, cotton, sor- roughly 960 cubic miles (4,000 cubic ghum, soybeans and wheat, among kilometers), nearly as much as is in others. Groundwater use also supports Lake Michigan. Estimates from the livestock, which account for more than U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and half of agricultural output by value other researchers suggest the current over most of the region and consume volume is now 8 to 10 percent lower much of the grain produced. That the [Figure 4]. Although this amount of High Plains, where annual precipita- depletion — spread over more than half tion is relatively low and surface water a century — may not sound especially is generally scarce, have been so pro- alarming, the figure belies the tremen- ductive speaks to the perseverance of dous variation seen in different parts the farmers cultivating the land, as well of the region. as to the engineering feats that pump On average across the northern and transport fresh groundwater to High Plains, which sits above roughly keep crops growing through irrigation. three-quarters of HPA groundwater, AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 9 105° 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97°

SOUTH DAKOTA WYOMING 43° U U

U NEBRASKA U U 42° U N ort h P lat te 105° Ri 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° ver

41° SOUTH DAKOTA WYOMING er 43° Riv Platte U U 105° 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° U 99° 98° 97° NEBRASKA 40° r e U v U R i e R SOUTHp DAKOTA e u t 42° b t WYOMING li a 105° 104° ca 97° l 103° 99° n 98° 102° 101° U 100° N R P or 43° th iv h U P e t la r u U tte o R S KANSASSOUTH DAKOTAiv 39° WYOMING er COLORADO U 43° NEBRASKA 105° U U 104° 98° 97° U 103° U 102° 41° 101° 100° 99° r 42° ive Arkan U Platte R sas U N SOUTH DAKOTA Riv or NEBRASKA WYOMINGer th 38° U U Pla tte U 43° R U iv 42° U er U N 40° r or e th v R P i e U l R 41° at p te e u NEBRASKA t b Ri t lic U U ve a r an r l ve R U P i 37° Platte R iv h e 42° t r u 41° N o U or S KANSAS th 39° Pl OKLAHOMA r att COLORADO ive e Platte R r R 40° C i e ve a v r R n i e a R p 36° d e u

i t a b t lic 41° n a an l Arkan sa R P s R r R 40° iv iv i h e er r e v t v ve R r eu i 38° Ri e o R Platte r p U S e KANSAS u t b 39° t li a can l COLORADO P R iv NEW MEXICO h e 35° t r u o 40° r S e KANSAS 39° v R i e R ACOLORADO p e rkans 37° u U t as b t Ri li a ve can l r 38° P R iv h U e t TEXAS r u OKLAHOMA 34° o S Arkan KANSAS sas R 39° ive C COLORADO r a 38° n U a 36° d

i

a n

37° U R i Arkans v 33° as R e ive r 38° r OKLAHOMA U 37° U C 35° NEW MEXICO a n a 36° d

i OKLAHOMA a

32° n

R C i a 37° v n U e a 36° rd

i

a TEXAS

n 34° 0 25 50 75 100 MILES R OKLAHOMA i NEW MEXICO v 35° e r 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS C a n a 36° d

i

NEW MEXICOa 35° n

R 33° i EXPLANATION v e TEXAS 34° r Water-level change, in feet Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 Declines Albers Equal-Area projection NEW MEXICO 35° TEXAS More than 150 Standard parallels 29°30’34° and 45°30’, central meridan -101° 100 to 150 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 32° 50 to 100 33° 25 to 50 10 to 25 TEXAS 5 to 10 Aquifer boundary34° from Qi (2010); areas of 0 25 50 75 100 MILES little or no saturated33° thickness and faults No substantial change from Gutentag and others (1984) and 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS -5 to +5 Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) 32° Rises 5 to 10 33° 10 to 25 EXPLANATION 32° 25 to 50 0 25 50 75 100 MILES More than 50 Water-level change, in feet Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 Declines 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS Albers Equal-Area projection Area of little or no saturated thickness More than 150 0 25 50 75 100 MILES Standard parallels 29°30’ and 45°30’, central meridan -101° Area of water-level changes with few 100 to 150 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 32° predevelopment water levels (Lowry 50 to 100 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS and others, 1967; Luckey andEXPLANATION others, 1981; 25 to 50 University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 10 to 25 Conservation andWater-level Survey Division, change, 2013) in feet 5 to 10 Base from0 U.S.25 Geological50 Survey75 digital100 MILES data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); areas of U Fault—U, upthrown Declinesside EXPLANATION Albers Equal-Area projection little or no saturated thickness and faults No substantial change Standard0 parallels25 50 29°30’75 100 and KILOMETERS 45°30’, central meridan -101° from Gutentag and others (1984) and Water-levelMore than 150 change, in feet -5 to +5 County boundary 100 to 150 NorthBase American from U.S. Datum Geological of 1983 Survey (NAD digital 83) data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) Declines50 to 100 Albers Equal-Area projection Rises 25 to 50 Standard parallels 29°30’ and 45°30’, central meridan -101° More than 150 5 to 10 10100 to 25toEXPLANATION 150 FigureNorth American 4a: Datum Map of 1983 of (NAD changes 83) in the depth to the water table in the High Plains Aquifer 10 to 25 550 to to10 100 Water-level change, in feet 25 to 50 (feet)Aquifer fromboundary from approximately Qi (2010); areas of 1950 to 2013. 25 to 50 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 More than 50 little or no saturated thickness and faults DeclinesNo10 substantial to 25 change Credit:Albers Equal-Area U.S. Geological projection Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5218, Virginia McGuire from Gutentag and others (1984) and More-5 5to thanto +5 10 150 Area of little or no saturated thickness StandardCederstrandAquifer parallels andboundary 29°30’Becker from (1999aand Qi 45°30’, (2010); and 1999b) central areas ofmeridan -101° 100 to 150 Area of water-level changes with few 10North Americanlittle or noDatum saturated of 1983 thickness (NAD 83) and faults AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional GroundwaterRisesNo substantial Resources change 50 to 100 predevelopment water levels (Lowry from Gutentag and others (1984) and 5 -5to to10 +5 25 to 50 and others, 1967; Luckey and others, 1981; Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) 1010 to to 25 25 University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 525 Risesto to10 50 Conservation and Survey Division, 2013) Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); areas of More5 to than 10 50 little or no saturated thickness and faults No 10substantial to 25 change U Area of little or no saturated thickness Fault—U, upthrown side from Gutentag and others (1984) and -5 to25 +5 to 50 Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) AreaMore of water-level than 50 changes with few County boundary Risespredevelopment water levels (Lowry 5 Areatoand 10 of others, little 1967;or no saturatedLuckey and thickness others, 1981; 10Area toUniversity 25 of water-level of Nebraska–Lincoln, changes with few 25 toConservation predevelopment50 and Surveywater levels Division, (Lowry 2013) U More thanand others, 50 1967; Luckey and others, 1981; Fault—U,University upthrown of Nebraska–Lincoln,side Area of Conservationlittle or no saturated and Survey thickness Division, 2013) County boundary U Area of water-level changes with few Fault—U,predevelopment upthrown water side levels (Lowry Countyand others, boundary 1967; Luckey and others, 1981; University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Conservation and Survey Division, 2013) U Fault—U, upthrown side

County boundary 105° 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97°

SOUTH DAKOTA WYOMING 43° U U

U NEBRASKA U U 42° U N ort h P lat te Ri ver 105° 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 41° r ve SOUTH DAKOTA Platte Ri WYOMING 43° U U

105° 104° 103° 102° 99° 98° 97° 40° r 101° 100° U e v R NEBRASKA i e R U p U e u t SOUTH DAKOTA b t li a can WYOMINGl 42° P R U iv N 43° h o t e rt U r h u U Pl o att S KANSAS e Ri 39° ver COLORADOU NEBRASKA U 105° U 104° 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 41°98° 97° 42° r ve Ar N Platte Ri U kansasor SOUTH DAKOTA Rtih WYOMING ve Pl 105° r att 38° 104° e 103° 102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 43° Ri U U ve r U 40° r e SOUTH DAKOTA v R i e 41° U R WYOMING p e u NEBRASKA t b r t lic 43° U U ve a an U i l R Platte R P U iv h e 42° U t r 37° u U N o U or S KANSAS th 39° Pla NEBRASKA COLORADO U tte 40° r U R OKLAHOMA e iv v er R i e R p 42° C e u t b t U a N li a n o ca l r n 41° a th R Ar P kans d P a 36° la iv s R

h i t i a t e v t e er r er u n R iv o iv R38° e tte S r KANSASPla U R 39° i v COLORADOe 41° r r 40° r e e iv NEW MEXICOv Platte R R 35° i e Ar R kansa p e s 37° u U t Ri b t ve li a r can 38° l P R U iv h e t r 40° u r OKLAHOMA o e S v KANSAS R i e 39° R C p e COLORADO u a t b n t TEXAS li a ca a 34° l n 36° R d P i

iv a

h e n 37° t U r u o R S KANSAS i Arkans v 39° as R e COLORADOive r 38° r OKLAHOMA U C NEW MEXICO a 35° 33° n a 36° d Ar i kan a sas R n ive r 38° R i U v 37° e U r TEXAS 34° 32° 35° NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA

C a 37° n U a 36° d

i

a n

0 25 50 75 100 MILES R OKLAHOMA33° i v TEXAS e 34° C r 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERSa n a 36° d

i

NEW MEXICOa

35° n

R i v e 32° r 33° EXPLANATION 35° NEW MEXICO TEXAS Saturated-thickness changes, in percent of 34° 0 25predevelopment50 75 saturated100 MILES thickness Declines 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS 32° More than 50 25 to 50 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 TEXAS 34° 10 to 25 33° Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30’ and 45°30’, central meridan -101° 0 25 50 75 100 MILES No substantial change North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) EXPLANATION 10 to -10 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS Saturated-thickness changes, in percent of Rises predevelopment saturated thickness 33° 32° 10 to 25 Declines Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); change in More than 25 saturated thickness since predevelopment, More than 50 25 to 50 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 modified from Luckey and others (1981); EXPLANATIONArea of little or no saturated thickness 10 to 25 Albers Equal-Area projection 0 25areas of50 little 75or no saturated100 MILES thickness and U Saturated-thicknessFaultStandard changes,—U, parallelsupthrown in percent 29°30’ side of and 45°30’, central meridan -101° No substantial change 32° faults from Gutentag and others (1984) and Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) predevelopmentNorth saturated American thickness Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS County boundary 10 to -10 Declines Rises More than 50 25 to 50 10 to 25 Base from0 U.S.25 Geological50 Survey75 digital100 data,MILES 2001, 1:2,000,000 Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); change in 10 to 25 More than 25 Albers Equal-Area projection saturated thickness since predevelopment, EXPLANATION Standard0 parallels25 50 29°30’75 100 and KILOMETERS 45°30’, central meridan -101° No substantial change modified from Luckey and others (1981); Area of little or no saturated thickness North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) areas of little or no saturated thickness and U 10 to -10 Saturated-thickness changes, in percent of Fault—U, upthrown side predevelopmentfaults from saturated Gutentag thickness and others (1984) and Rises Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) Figure 4b: Map of changes in groundwater thickness in theDeclines County boundary 10 to 25 HighAquifer Plains boundary fromAquifer Qi (2010); change from in approximately 1950 to 2013.More than 25More thanEXPLANATION 50 25 to 50 saturatedBase thicknessfrom U.S. sinceGeological predevelopment, Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 Credit: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5218, Virginia McGuire10 to 25 modifiedAlbers from Equal-Area Luckey projection and others (1981); Area of littleSaturated-thickness or no saturated thickness changes, in percent of areas ofStandard little or parallels no saturated 29°30’ thickness and 45°30’, and central meridan -101° U predevelopment saturated thickness faults from Gutentag and others (1984) and Fault—U, upthrownNo substantial side change AGI CriticalNorth AmericanIssues Datum Forum: of 1983 Regional (NAD 83) Groundwater Resources Declines 11 Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) 10 to -10 County boundaryMore than 50 Rises25 to 50 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2001, 1:2,000,000 1010 to to 2525 Albers Equal-Area projection Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); change in More than 25 Standard parallelssaturated 29°30’ thickness and 45°30’,since predevelopment, central meridan -101° No substantial change North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) modified from Luckey and others (1981); Area10 toof -10little or no saturated thickness areas of little or no saturated thickness and U faults from Gutentag and others (1984) and RisesFault—U, upthrown side Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) County10 to 25boundary Aquifer boundary from Qi (2010); change in More than 25 saturated thickness since predevelopment, modified from Luckey and others (1981); Area of little or no saturated thickness areas of little or no saturated thickness and U faults from Gutentag and others (1984) and Fault—U, upthrown side Cederstrand and Becker (1999a and 1999b) County boundary and/or dryland farming, or using more efficient irrigation technology. [In] portions of Kansas, Such shifts, though necessary, usually Oklahoma, and Texas come at a cost, whether through loss overlying the HPA ... water of agricultural land, cultivation of less levels have dropped by profitable crops, decreased yields, or about 13 to 41 feet (4 to increased investment. 12.5 meters) on average. In addition to worries over how large-scale draw-downs in parts of the HPA will affect agriculture and livelihoods, there are other concerns there has been almost no depletion, associated with heavy groundwater and in parts of Nebraska, water levels use. Dropping water levels can lead have actually risen [Figure 4]. How- to land subsidence as formerly satu- ever, a different picture prevails across rated layers of the subsurface collapse the portions of Kansas, Oklahoma and under their own weight. Pumping and Texas overlying the HPA, where water irrigation can at times introduce con- levels have dropped by about 13 to taminants into groundwater, either via 41 feet (4 to 12.5 meters) on average. wells or by flushing salts in soil down The disparity is even greater at more into shallow, unconfined portions of local scales: The maximum drop in aquifers. And even small reductions water level observed in Texas, for in groundwater levels can have signif- example, is nearly 263 feet (80 meters). icant effects, impacting flows in rivers, In the central and southern HP, wetlands, and other surface waters where the initial volume of water in the that receive natural discharges from aquifer was far smaller to start than in shallow groundwater sources. Reduced the northern HP and where discharge baseflows in the Platte and Republi- rates are five to 10 times higher than can rivers, which run predominantly recharge rates, these drops in water through Nebraska (as well as through level signify proportionally large parts of Colorado, Kansas and Wyo- depletions. Across large stretches of ming), due to small drops in the water North Texas, as well as parts of western table, have damaged ecosystems that Kansas, groundwater use has depleted are home to a number of endangered more than 50 percent of the aquifer’s species and contributed to legal dis- local saturated thickness, leaving rela- putes over the use of the river flows. tively thin reserves of water at greater In light of such ongoing issues of depth. The Kansas Geological Survey groundwater depletion and allocation, estimates, based on historical usage as well as projections for increased trends, that the aquifer will be effec- groundwater use in the future as tively exhausted in large parts of west- demands on agriculture increase, tem- ern Kansas within 50 years, and some peratures rise, and droughts become areas have already reached that point more frequent and persistent, there [Figure 5]. is an urgency to reexamine existing The lack of groundwater and the governance frameworks and manage- rising cost of pumping the diminish- ment plans concerning groundwater in ing supplies have forced farmers to the HPA — and likely elsewhere — to adapt, fallowing or selling off land, identify where and how they might be switching to less water-intensive crops updated and improved. 12 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Figure 5: Map of estimated usable lifetime for the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas. (Based on groundwater trends from 1996– 1998 to 2014–2016.) Credit: Kansas Geological Survey Public Information Circular 18

Groundwater Governance resources and policies were developed and Management in the at different times in different places, not all at once across each state or the High Plains entire region. The invisibility and lack Much like the details of groundwa- of understanding of the HPA — partic- ter availability and depletion, there ularly its finite size as well as how and is a mosaic of groundwater manage- over how long it is replenished — also ment and governance practices across contributed to a lack of broad-scale the High Plains Aquifer region, with management early in its history. Com- approaches varying considerably munities of irrigators thus developed among and within states. This mosaic their own systems to manage local arose partly because groundwater groundwater resources as they saw ©credit AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 13 more likely to succeed in different The states overlying the places depending on prevailing phys- ical conditions, existing management HPA have a diverse array frameworks, and cultural identities. of water laws that treat The most fundamental part of suc- entitlements to groundwater cessful groundwater management is establishing clear management goals use differently. and desired outcomes. Although whether such goals are feasible, and what they might look like in practice, fit. By comparison, use of and impacts is often unclear. And reconciling com- on surface waters are highly visible; peting goals is a major social, rather hence, surface waters have been and than technical, challenge. For many continue to be regulated to a greater people, sustainability and the conser- extent than groundwater. vation of groundwater for future gen- Today, the states overlying the HPA erations and/or to positively impact the have a diverse array of water laws that treat entitlements to groundwater use differently. In Texas and Oklahoma, for example, the right to pump groundwa- There is no ideal, ter is a property right attached to the one-size-fits-all setup for land. Elsewhere, as in Kansas, water rights are owned, can be sold or passed groundwater governance. on, and are prioritized based on when they were granted, but are not attached to the land. Each of the HPA states also environment are of utmost importance. have their own frameworks in place For others, the managed use of water that parse the responsibilities of moni- resources over set periods of time is toring and regulating the aquifer to dif- the preferred goal, while others want ferent extents between state agencies, to maximize the immediate return like natural resources departments and on investment. geological surveys, and assortments of Given the extremely slow rates of local to regional groups. In most states, recharge of the aquifer throughout groundwater management (or conser- most of the central and southern High vation) districts, natural resources dis- Plains — most of the water in those tricts, water conservation areas, and portions of the aquifer has been there similar organizations allow local input for roughly 11,000 years — virtually into and some degree of autonomy any amount of pumping constitutes — sometimes substantial — over the unsustainable mining of the resource governance of groundwater. (at least on human time scales) that will In reality, the location-dependent cause water levels to drop. This may details of groundwater availability, seem tragic, but in these areas where soil, climate, and other factors demand groundwater is deep underground and management tailored on a relatively doesn’t directly impact surface waters small scale, so there is no ideal, one- or ecosystems, the question for manag- size-fits-all setup for groundwater ers — and for farmers, who are most governance. And in the HPA region, directly affected by limitations on use it’s clear that different approaches are and for whom irrigation equates to 14 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources The aquifer is close to the surface in north central Nebraska. Surface water flows in this area directly affect recharge rates. Conversely, groundwater levels often affect surface water flows. Credit: Brenna Tobler

Conservation may also help ensure that water will be available for succes- The most fundamental part sive generations to continue working of successful groundwater family farms. Elsewhere, such as across much of management is establishing Nebraska and the northern HP, where clear management goals and the top of the aquifer is so close to the desired outcomes. surface that it directly impacts surface water flows, sustainable use is a more common goal. High recharge rates also mean that sustainability is generally a income and livelihoods — is whether more viable option, although managers there is actually any value in leaving still must balance the groundwater the water underground. Although sus- needs of irrigators to maintain crops. tainability per se may be a tough sell in Whatever the motivation — eco- these areas, there are economic appeals nomic, environmental, or some com- for groundwater conservation that are bination thereof — effective manage- perhaps more persuasive. For instance, ment requires laying out quantifiable if irrigated crops can be grown more targets (e.g., for annual consumption) efficiently in a crop-per-drop sense — or desired future conditions (e.g., that through moderate reductions in water a certain proportion of saturated thick- use or installation of new technology ness in a location will still remain in — a grower may be able to earn profit 50 years) along with clear plans for how from farming irrigated land for longer. to arrive at those conditions. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 15 A Natural Resources Con- servation Service (NRCS) soil scientist discusses nutrient management with a Saunders Co. farmer in Nebraska. Credit: NRCS/Bob Nichols

Currently, most HPA states and/or look in the HPA; some have been more local groundwater management agen- capable and more efficient than others cies have stated goals of some sort, as at achieving goals such as reductions well as roadmaps to achieve the goals in use, maximizing the earning poten- based on available monitoring data and tial of groundwater use, and fostering usage forecasts, both of which inform communication among stakeholders. groundwater management practices. Occasional, critical assessment of cur- A key but often overlooked part of rent institutions can help ensure that the success of such plans is flexibility. administrative structures support The timelines for management goals groundwater management goals. are typically laid out in decades. Over It’s important to recognize, how- such periods, conditions — particularly ever, that as with any governing bod- with respect to weather and climate — ies, inertia develops the longer they can change dramatically, as can usage exist and so there is built-in resistance, patterns, technology and our under- if not occasional hostility, to change — standing of the aquifer. Thus, building often both from the governing and the in the capacity to adapt management governed as they grow accustomed goals, strategies and practices to chang- and attached to how things operate ing conditions is likely a far better locally. Major adjustments to gover- approach — and one that is practiced nance structures — like redrawing routinely in other industries and areas boundaries of established groundwa- of natural resource management — ter conservation districts or institut- than set-it-and-forget-it policies. ing new structures altogether — can In addition to setting clear goals also take substantial amounts of time and adapting to change over time to to carry out, potentially disrupting achieve them, another critical compo- resource management and counter- nent of effective groundwater manage- acting intended benefits of making the ment is the ability of the governance adjustments. Thus, it’s typically more structure that’s in place to actually expedient to look for ways to update carry out management plans. As men- existing governance frameworks and tioned, there are numerous different structures to effect desired changes in structures depending on where you groundwater management. 16 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Most existing governance frame- broader the imposing entity, the greater works in the HPA region are made the objection. Indeed, state regulatory up to some extent of institutions and efforts, and even local efforts, are gen- stakeholders working on groundwater erally met with opposition, sometimes management at multiple levels, from fierce. Such opposition reduces coop- the farm on up to the state government. eration among stakeholders and can These nested organizational structures be counterproductive in achieving take on many different appearances groundwater management goals. depending on location: In Oklahoma Beyond this, landowners naturally and parts of Texas, for example, irri- understand the nuances of the land gators are accountable directly to state- they farm — what will grow where level oversight. Elsewhere in Texas with how much water, which tech- and in most of Kansas overlying the niques may be most efficient, and so HPA, groundwater management or on — better than anyone. Thus, land- conservation districts (often covering owners, well drillers, and local man- several counties, though their juris- agement agencies are likely in the best dictions are not necessarily confined position to facilitate community dis- by county borders) oversee irrigators cussions about groundwater, to outline and are accountable to state agencies. water management plans optimized for Certain areas in Kansas are further des- their area, and to oversee those plans ignated as Intensive Groundwater Use once enacted. Areas, Local Enhanced Management Meanwhile, through legislation Areas, or Water Conservation Areas, and education, states can help elevate each of which has additional implica- groundwater issues in the public psy- tions for irrigators. che; they can set broad targets for sus- tainability or efficiency improvements; and they can incentivize stakeholder Top-down water rules and efforts to achieve the goals. State-level regulations are likely to be entities, with their more substantial unpopular; and the broader scientific, engineering and public relations resources, are generally bet- the imposing entity, the ter positioned to provide consistent greater the objection statewide groundwater monitoring and forecasts of changing conditions to help guide decision-making, and A lesson apparent from across much to coordinate outreach and education of the HPA is that nested governance efforts with and among local groups. frameworks are often necessary and Enforcement efforts to ensure com- generally effective, provided that pliance with water laws and usage responsibilities are appropriately allo- regulations are a responsibility that cated among institutions at different is sometimes best handled at the state levels. A little consideration of how level, or shared between the state and entwined water is in longstanding cul- local agencies. While some ground- tural identities — as well as in individ- water management entities, such as ual property rights — throughout much Nebraska’s Natural Resources Dis- of the High Plains is enough to realize tricts, monitor wells to check that irri- that top-down water rules and regula- gators are in compliance, local groups tions are likely to be unpopular; and the often do not have adequate resources AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 17 to conduct thorough monitoring and/ need for regionally and locally tailored or to deal with instances of abuse or management in the HPA, however, in water rights disputes among irrigators. addition to the high level of skepticism Furthermore, local policing can raise with which many irrigators and HPA the potential for conflicts of interest and stakeholders view federal oversight inconsistent treatment — whether will- and intervention, such a role should ful or not — when those in charge of be carefully considered and largely enforcement are more familiar with the (or entirely) hands-off with respect to constituents whom they are supposed actual management of the resource. to be both representing and monitor- Several potentially useful areas for a ing. State agencies, on the other hand, federal presence in HPA governance typically have greater resources, as well include study of the aquifer and remain- as greater authority to act in cases of ing resources, along with modeling and abuse or conflict; in theory, they should forecasting of future conditions, to com- also be less subject to potential bias plement state-level data collection and and should be able to provide more modeling; support for educational and consistent enforcement. outreach efforts related to groundwater resources; aligning agricultural policy with national goals for groundwater The rules by which all users conservation; and offering incentives are expected to abide... to states to pursue similar shared goals. must be clearly defined and disseminated in collaboration Measuring what with stakeholders. You’re Managing Understanding the physical nature of Regardless of who handles enforce- aquifers and, even more importantly, ment, several factors are vital to the accurately assessing groundwater vol- acceptance of such efforts by stakehold- umes, usage and recharge rates, are ers, and to the success of these efforts in foundational to successful groundwa- achieving broad compliance. First, the ter management. Each of these requires rules by which all users are expected to collecting and analyzing data on both abide, as well as the range of violations large and local scales. Although data and penalties for violations, must be don’t create or present solutions to clearly defined and disseminated in groundwater issues on their own, collaboration with stakeholders them- they are necessary in order for those selves. Second, if a rule exists, it must be involved in groundwater governance to enforced. And finally, enforcement and make reasoned decisions about how to penalties must be applied fairly and move forward. Further, in the absence consistently to all violators. Failure to of adequate data and information, meet these criteria can undermine the there is increased uncertainty about integrity of, and trust in, enforcement the resource as well as more room for apparatuses, as well as in the broader it to be negatively exploited. groundwater governance efforts. Abundant data have been collected Another party that could play a about groundwater in the HPA as a role in nested governance frameworks whole. The NASA-sponsored GRACE is the federal government. Given the satellite mission collects large-scale 18 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Figure 6: Map of Kansas groundwater monitoring wells (blue shading indicates High Plains Aquifer coverage; orange dots indicate monitoring wells). Credit: Kansas Geological Survey spatial data from space describing — the other half of the aquifer use-re- changes in the mass of groundwater sponse balance — is severely lacking stored beneath the High Plains (and across most of the region. Collecting elsewhere). And on the ground, the these sorts of data on an ongoing basis USGS and other federal agencies occa- can help illuminate seasonal cycles as sionally measure water levels from a well as short- and long-term trends in selection of wells tapping the aquifer, as the aquifer. do state agencies and some local groups. Considering that groundwater But as is often the case, where hav- management is ultimately intended ing some data is a good thing, having to benefit irrigators and the public at more is better — and this is certainly large, however, collecting and analyz- true in the HPA. Densely monitored ing more data, though necessary, is not water-level data are collected in some enough. To be useful for policy mak- areas [Figure 6], but this is not the norm ers, managers, farmers and the public, across the High Plains; at local scales, information about the aquifer must be there are many knowledge gaps with communicated to these groups in forms respect to the condition and behavior they can easily access, digest and use. of the HPA. Additionally, researchers The need for landowners and other who rely on occasional spot checks of groundwater stakeholders to trust water levels can only get snapshots of monitoring and management efforts conditions in the aquifer at given times is a major reason why data accessibility as opposed to continuous pictures is important. Presenting information throughout the year and from one year transparently, and being honest about to the next. Furthermore, compared to the limits of current knowledge and water-level data, which offers a view both the facts and uncertainties of pro- of the aquifer’s response to ground- jections of future conditions and risk, water pumping, data on water usage will help build this trust. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 19 that most wells are on private property, the level of trust that landowners have Outreach and public in the people and agencies tasked with engagement... [are] monitoring can impact the ease with imperative to the which wells can be accessed — even when an agency has a legal right to success of groundwater conduct monitoring on a property. management goals. Building Trust through The Kansas Geological Survey Outreach and Engagement (KGS) offers a potential model for Making science and data from the improved data collection and accessi- HPA, along with useful data-based bility efforts. In 2007, the KGS began products, broadly accessible is a vital setting up a dense network of contin- component of engaging with ground- uously monitored “index” wells tap- water stakeholders, from legislators ping the HPA in the state [Figure 6]. and local water management groups Data from these wells (and from other to individual irrigators and the public. wells monitored occasionally) is pub- And outreach and public engagement licly available through the KGS web- by the groups involved in groundwa- site and has already helped illuminate ter data collection and governance, seasonal and recent short-term trends although time-consuming and often in water levels near the wells. It has expensive, is imperative to the success also been incorporated into economic of groundwater management goals. impact studies and maps of estimated That’s because monitoring, regulation, usable lifetime for the HPA across Kan- enforcement and other efforts aimed at sas [Figure 5]; the maps suggest that achieving management goals cannot the aquifer may be a viable source of succeed without the support of stake- groundwater for decades or centuries holders. And such support comes from to come in some areas, while in other the trust built through communication areas, the water remaining is already and dialogue between those governing below the threshold needed to support and those governed. agricultural pumping. Translating data Public engagement can and should into a more easily understood map in take many forms as different people this way has made it easier for Kansas learn and respond best in different water managers to begin conversations settings and with different approaches. with irrigators and the public about Lecture- and classroom-style public managing groundwater supplies. presentations may be the most famil- Such efforts help demonstrate the iar means of community engagement practical value of data collection with and information sharing, but many respect to the HPA. But the logistics of other avenues exist. Online resources expanding collection and communica- and tools, for example, let people pro- tion of these data are tricky. Monitor- cess information at their own pace ing existing wells and installing new and convenience. Some groundwater wells is expensive, time-consuming, management groups have developed and doesn’t always align with budget- incentivized certification programs ary priorities. In addition, considering and demonstration farms to introduce 20 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources For many people in the High Plains, as elsewhere, farming and irrigating is a way of life, supporting family livelihoods across generations and contributing to local cultural identities in areas where independence from outside influence and deep connections to the land are long-held points of pride.

Credit: ©Shutterstock.com/AlexussK irrigators to new practices and tech- Another important element in effec- nologies designed to improve water- tive public engagement with respect use efficiency. Including farmers and to groundwater is the way in which others in data collection — through communication with an audience is citizen science programs or simply handled. For many people in the High by involving irrigators in the process Plains, as elsewhere, farming and irri- of checking well levels on their own gating is a way of life, supporting fam- land — is a means of engagement on ily livelihoods across generations and contributing to local cultural identities in areas where independence from out- Engagement should side influence and deep connections to be approached as the land are long-held points of pride. Thus, outreach efforts in which com- a conversation. munication only goes one way — with officials, for example, trying to edu- cate farmers or prescribe new practices a more personalized level. Education while not seeking input or feedback efforts aimed at school-aged children from the farmers themselves — face and young adults (where possible, as longer odds for success, particularly if school curricula are often subject to those doing the talking are not from the oversight by other groups) may also community to which they’re speaking. be effective means of communication, Rather, engagement should be teaching students earlier on about how approached as a conversation: Those aquifers work and introducing them to behind the outreach surely have mes- current and potential future ground- sages they need to convey — about water issues. conservation measures, monitoring AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 21 To have lasting positive impacts, public engagement efforts must be made often and on an ongoing basis.

efforts, future risk projections, etc. — the most impact amid their peers. Such but they should also solicit feedback influencers may be found among irri- from their audiences and then take this gators who are early adopters of new feedback seriously. After all, farmers, technology and understanding; ranch- ranchers, well drillers and others, with ers who rely on silage from farmers to their wealth of accumulated knowl- feed their animals; university extension edge about how local lands, crops and specialists; crop consultants; well drill- climates behave, can often offer inno- ers; and business owners and industry vative strategies for groundwater use. leaders who purchase from farmers Additionally, while officials should or are otherwise involved or invested strive to offer honest portrayals of cur- in local agriculture. Outreach efforts rent and future conditions, informa- will never get through to nor resonate tion should be presented in ways that, with all stakeholders. But, compared as much as possible, eschew drama- to organizations from outside a com- tized or threatening warnings about munity, local leaders involved in their groundwater consumption and that communities typically stand a better refrain from assigning blame to specific chance of identifying individuals and groups or individuals. Overall, this groups most likely to be receptive to approach promotes open dialogue and engagement efforts, and thus maximiz- sharing of opinions and ideas, while ing the impact of these efforts. discouraging potentially adversarial relationships between groundwater stakeholders and those tasked with managing resources. A Need for Communication Finally, to have lasting positive and Collaboration in impacts, public engagement efforts must be made often and on an ongoing Groundwater Management basis. If the people conducting outreach Despite an emphasis during the Crit- are frequently present and accessible ical Issues Forum on the necessity for in local communities — as opposed to locally tailored groundwater man- stopping through once a year, say, to agement, as well as improved and deliver an annual dose of education increased data collection and outreach or perhaps unpleasant updates on the on local scales, forum participants also state of groundwater — they are more noted that the states and communities likely to earn the trust of the people tapping the HPA are not all entirely they’re trying to reach and to build faith unique from one another. Many places in governance and management efforts. grow the same crops, have similar To this end, local leaders and groundwater governance setups cur- other trusted influential community rently, and face similar present and members enlisted to do outreach and future problems with respect to their engagement, whether formally or infor- groundwater resources. Furthermore, mally, are often best positioned to make although the character of the aquifer 22 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources varies from place to place, it is none- public engagement approaches; from theless a single system not confined by sharing collected data as well as tools state or local borders; this means that developed to analyze data, forecast the actions of one irrigator, commu- future aquifer conditions, and project nity, or state can and often do impact risk; and potentially from groundwater others. Thus, an overall consensus that compacts that provide opportunities emerged from the forum was that there for neighboring states or local agencies is abundant room — and need — for to work together — rather than at odds much more communication and collab- with one another — to achieve the oration among communities and local management goals of each. and state management agencies both The road ahead for many people, within states and across state lines. communities, industries and eco- systems that rely on the High Plains Aquifer is unclear: How much water Local leaders involved in will be available, and for how long? And what’s the best way to manage their communities typically the resource for however long it is stand a better chance of available? There is of course no one identifying individuals and answer to these questions and no one- size-fits-all solution to groundwater groups most likely to be issues throughout the HPA. However, receptive to engagement communication, collaboration and efforts, and thus maximizing information sharing offer ways for groundwater stakeholders to better the impact of these efforts. understand the aquifer and learn about management practices that they per- haps had not previously considered. Useful collaboration, for example, Put into practice, this greater awareness could come from sharing experiences and knowledge could help prolong the with respect to successful (or unsuc- availability and usefulness of ground- cessful) governance, management and water in the High Plains.

©iStockphoto.com/DebiBishop

AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 23 Speaker Biographies — Keynote Speakers

Sharon B. Megdal, Director, Merri Lisa Trigilio, Director/Producer, University of Arizona “Written on Water” Water Resources Research Center After-Dinner Keynote Talk “Regional Aquifer Challenges in the West” Written on Water’s Sharon B. Megdal is Producer and Direc- Director of The Uni- tor, Merri Lisa Trig- versity of Arizona ilio, has an art degree Water Resources in photography and Research Center, film, and a doctorate in an Extension and Geosciences from Penn research unit in the State University. After College of Agriculture fifteen years working and Life Sciences. She also holds the titles: as a geophysicist and later as a researcher Professor and Specialist, Department of in carbon sequestration, Merri Lisa found Soil, Water, and Environmental Science; her way back to documentary storytelling. C.W. & Modene Neely Endowed Professor; In 2012, she was a fellow at the Smithsonian and Distinguished Outreach Professor. Her Museum in Washington, DC, where she work focuses on water policy and manage- wrote and produced educational docu- ment challenges and solutions, on which mentaries. She continues to explore science she writes and frequently speaks. Current communication through the film medium, projects include: comparative evaluation working as a freelance producer and direc- of water management, policy, and gover- tor for educational institutions. nance in growing, water-scarce regions; groundwater management and governance; groundwater recharge; and transboundary aquifer assessment. Sharon, who holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton Uni- versity, is active in several national water organizations and is an elected member of Central Arizona Project board, which is responsible for the rates, taxes, and policies of the largest surface water conveyance project in Arizona.

Jason Gurdak, Associate Professor, San Francisco State University “Groundwater Policy in the Face of Climate Change”

Dr. Jason Gurdak is an Associate Professor of Hydrogeology in the Department of Earth & Climate Sciences at San Francisco State Uni- versity. He is Coordinator of the UNESCO-International Hydrologic Program called Groundwater Resources Assessment under the Pres- sure of Humanity and Climate Change (GRAPHIC). GRAPHIC is a global-scale research, education, and outreach program that addresses climate change and sustainability of global groundwater resources. Prior to joining SFSU, he was a hydrologist for 11 years with the USGS. Dr. Gurdak has authored more than 50 publications in hydrology, including topics on the science and policy of climate change impacts and adaptation of groundwater resources.

24 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Speaker Biographies

William M. Alley, Director of Science Ann Bleed, Former Director, Nebraska and Technology, National Ground Department of Natural Resources Water Association Ann Bleed, Ph.D., P.E. Dr. William M. Alley Emeritus, is retired, is Director of Science but currently is direc- and Technology for tor on the Lower Platte the National Ground South Natural Re­ Water Association. He sources District. For served as Chief, Office most of her career Ann of Groundwater for worked at the State of the U.S. Geological Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Survey for almost two decades. Dr. Alley first as the State Hydrologist, then as Dep- has published over 90 scientific publications uty Director, and finally as Director of the and received numerous awards for his Department. While at the Department she work, including the Meritorious Presiden- also served as a Nebraska representative tial Rank Award. He holds a B.S. in Geo- on the negotiating teams that settled two logical Engineering from the Colorado interstate water allocation lawsuits over the School of Mines, an M.S. from Stanford North Platte and Republican Rivers before University, and a Ph.D. from the Johns the U. S. Supreme Court, and helped Hopkins University. He and his wife, Rose- develop the Platte River Recovery and marie, recently completed a general science Implementation Program. book, “High and Dry,” published in early 2017. Nick Brozovic, Director of Policy, Water for Food Global Institute at the Jean Bahr, President, American University of Nebraska Geosciences Institute Nick Brozovic is Direc- Jean Bahr has been on tor of Policy at the the faculty of the Water for Food Global Department of Geosci- Institute at the Univer- ence at the University sity of Nebraska. He of Wisconsin-Madison works to ensure that since 1987. She also the Institute’s pro- participates in inter- grams inform water disciplinary graduate management policies and decision makers. programs. Her research focuses on the Brozovic has over 15 years of experience in interactions between physical and chemical water policy worldwide. A particular focus processes controlling solute transport and of his research is on evaluating policies and transformation in groundwater systems. governance structures for agricultural She is the current President of AGI and also water management, including water market an Editor of the American Geophysical design and implementation. He holds doc- Union’s journal Water Resources Research. toral and master’s degrees in agricultural She was the 2003 Birdsall-Dreiss Distin- and resource economics from the University guished Lecturer for Hydrogeology Divi- of California-Berkeley, a master’s degree in sion of the Geological Society of America geology from the University of Southern (GSA) and served as GSA President in California and a bachelor’s degree in geol- 2009-2010. ogy from Oxford University. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 25 Speaker Biographies

Rex Buchanan, Director Emeritus, Elizabeth Eide, Director, Board on Earth Kansas Geological Survey, University Sciences and Resources, The National of Kansas Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Rex Buchanan is the and Medicine Director Emeritus of Elizabeth Eide directs the Kansas Geological the Board on Earth Sci- Survey, based at the ences and Resources University of Kansas. and Water Science and A native of Kansas, he Technology Board at is the co-author of the National Acade- Roadside Kansas: A mies of Sciences, Engi- Guide to its Geology and Landmarks (rev. neering, and Medi- edition, 2010) and editor of Kansas Geology: cine. The Boards oversee activities including An Introduction to Landscapes, Rocks, Min- energy and mineral resources; hazards; erals, and Fossils (rev. edition, 2010), both geotechnical engineering; geospatial and published by the University Press of Kan- geographical science; and all issues related sas; and co-author of The Canyon Revisited: to water. Prior to joining the Academies in A Repho­tography of the Grand Canyon, 2005, she was a research geologist for 12 1923-1991, published by the University of years at the Norwegian Geological Survey. Utah Press (1994). He served as Secretary She is a Fulbright Scholarship recipient and of the Association of American State Geol- was elected to the Royal Norwegian Society ogists and chaired the Kansas Task Force of Sciences and Letters. She completed a on Induced Seismicity. In 2008 he was Ph.D. at Stanford University and B.A. at named a fellow of the Geological Society of Franklin & Marshall College, both America and in 2016 received GSA’s Public in geology. Service Award.

James Eklund, Director, Colorado Jim Butler, Senior Scientist, Kansas Water Conservation Board Geological Survey, University of Kansas James Eklund is the Jim Butler is a Senior director of the Colo- Scientist and Chief of rado Water Conserva- the Geohydrology Sec- tion Board (CWCB) tion of the Kansas Geo- and serves as Colora- logical Survey at the do’s interstate repre- University of Kansas, sentative on the Colo- where he has worked rado River. As a since 1986. He holds a lawyer and a government official, Eklund B.S. in Geology from the College of William is already a disappointment to much of his and Mary, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Applied family on the Western Slope. He is redeemed Hydrogeology from Stanford University. in their eyes, however, because he drinks Jim was the 2007 Darcy Distinguished Lec- whiskey and fights over water (but never turer of the National Ground Water Asso- at the same time). As the Director of the ciation and the 2009 recipient of the Pioneers CWCB, Eklund leads the state’s water pol- in Groundwater Award of the Environmen- icy, financing, and planning efforts. Eklund tal and Water Resources Institute of the is a graduate of Stanford University and the American Society of Civil Engineers. University of Denver College of Law 26 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Speaker Biographies

(neither of which, his father is quick to note, John E. McCray, Professor and Head, made him any better at cleaning ditches or Civil and Environmental Engineering, irrigating pasture). The Upper Colorado Colorado School of Mines River endangered fish he most identifies John McCray is Profes- with is the Razorback Sucker because he sor and Head of the thinks of himself as sharp but also some- Civil & Environmental what gullible. Engineering Depart- ment at Colorado School of Mines, spe- Wendy J. Harrison, Professor, Geology cializing in hydro­logy, and Geological Engineering, Colorado water resources, and School of Mines water quality. He is currently Mines PI of Wendy J. Harrison is a the NSF Engineering Research Center for tenured Professor of urban water, ReNUWIt, the first ERC for Geology and Geologi- water. He is a member of the U.S. EPA Sci- cal Engineering at Col- ence Advisory Board, a Fellow of the ASCE orado School of Mines. Environmental and Water Resources Insti- Her fields of scholarly tute, and was a Fulbright Fellow to Chile expertise are in geo- for water resources. He earned his Ph.D. in chemistry and hydrol- hydrology and water resources from the ogy as well as geoscience education and she University of Arizona, and a BS in engineer- has published papers in topics that range ing from West Virginia University. from impact shock metamorphism in lunar materials, the formation of gas hydrates and their role in CO2 sequestration, metals Kyle E. Murray, Hydrogeologist, uptake by trees in mined lands, and miti- Oklahoma Geological Survey, gating respiratory quartz dust hazard. Dr. University of Oklahoma Harrison recently completed an appoint- Dr. Kyle E. Murray is a ment at the National Science Foundation as Hydrogeologist for the Division Director for Earth Sciences in the Oklahoma Geological Geosciences Directorate. She currently Survey (OGS) at the serves as an academic advisor to the Petro- University of Okla- leum Institute, Abu Dhabi and Nazarbayev homa (OU). His re­ University, Kazakhstan. Her work experi- search covers a broad ence includes 8 years as a senior research spectrum of topics in geologist for Exxon Production Research Oklahoma & the mid-Continent including Company in Houston, Texas. water issues in the energy sector, regional water supply, contaminants of emerging con- cern (CEC), and wastewater reuse in the municipal and industrial sector. He is a mem- ber of the Oklahoma City Geological Society (OCGS), Geological Society of America (GSA), National Ground Water Association (NGWA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) where he serves as an Associate Editor for Hydrogeology Journal. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 27 Speaker Biographies

Susan Stover, Outreach Manager, David Wunsch, Director/State Kansas Geological Survey, University Geologist, Delaware Geological Survey of Kansas David R. Wunsch Susan Stover, P.G., is joined the Delaware Outreach Manager at Geological Survey as the Kansas Geological the new Director and Survey. She worked in State Geologist in water policy, water November 2011. Dr. resource planning and Wunsch came to DGS environmental reme- from the National diation for the State of Ground Water Association (NGWA), where Kansas for 20 years, before joining the Sur- he served as the Director of Science and vey in 2014. Her experience includes work- Technology. Wunsch was the State Geolo- ing with stakeholders on programs and gist of New Hampshire from 2000 to 2010, policies to conserve the High Plains Aquifer; where he had statutory appointments to organizing conferences on water and on the New Hampshire Joint Board of Geol- teaching evolution; and hosting field trips ogy, and the NH Water Well Board, which for state legislators. She holds an M.S. in oversee the licensing and adjudicatory pro- geology, University of Kansas, and a B.A. ceedings for professional geologists and in geology, University of Nebraska. Stover licensed well drillers, respectively. He is is a Geological Society of America Fellow Licensed Professional Geologist in Ken- and vice-chair of GSA’s Geology & tucky, New Hampshire, and Delaware. Society Division. Prior to his appointment as New Hamp- shire State Geologist, Dr. Wunsch was selected as the 1998-99 American Geological Steven D. Walthour, General Institute Congressional Science Fellow. Manager, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Texas Steve Walthour is the General Manager of the North Plains Groundwater Conser- vation District. He has 28 years experience in subsurface geology and groundwater management. Steve holds a Master’s Degree from the University of Arkansas and is a licensed professional geoscientist in the State of Texas (License No. 1582).

28 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources About the American Geosciences Institute (AGI)

he American Geosciences Institute represents and serves the geoscience Tcommunity by providing collaborative leadership and information to connect Earth, science, and people. AGI was founded in 1948, under a directive of the National Academy of Sciences, as a network of associations representing geoscientists with a diverse array of skills and knowledge of our planet. The Institute provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society’s use of resources, resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the environment. AGI connects Earth, science, and people by serving as a unifying force for the geoscience community. With a network of 51 member societies, AGI represents more than a quarter-million geoscientists. No matter your individual discipline, AGI’s essential programs and services will strengthen your connection to the geosciences.

EARTH Magazine: This monthly pub- Policy and Critical Issues: Geoscience lication explores the science behind Policy works with AGI member soci- the headlines. EARTH magazine gives eties and policy makers to provide a readers definitive coverage on topics focused voice for the shared interests of from natural resources, energy, natu- the geoscience profession in the federal ral disasters and the environment to policy process. Critical Issues provides space exploration and paleontology a portal to comprehensive, impartial and much more. geoscience information for decision makers and holds frequent webinars Education and Outreach: AGI Educa- to connect geoscientists to decision tion offers products and services for makers and the public. K-12 educators, including NSF-funded curricula, high-definition videos, class- Workforce: AGI produces the Direc- room activities, teacher professional tory of Geoscience Departments pub- development, and online resources. lication on human resources of the U.S. geosciences community. It collects data GeoRef: GeoRef is a comprehensive, on the supply of and demand for geo- bibliographic database containing over scientists, and works with other orga- 3.5 million references to geoscience nizations and government agencies to journal articles, books, maps, confer- ensure that the health of the profession ence papers, reports and theses. is understood. AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 29 Selected AGI Projects

AGI’s Geoscience Online Learning Initiative (GOLI): started in cooper- ation with the American Institute of Professional Geologists, provides asyn- chronous life-long and continuing edu- cation opportunities to the geoscience Earth Science Week: Reaching over profession. GOLI provides live webi- 50 million people a year, Earth Science nars, online courses via the OpenEdX Week promotes awareness of Earth platform, and continuous education science and appreciation of the geo- credits for asynchronous learning. sciences’ role in society. This inter- national public awareness campaign, organized each October by AGI, pro- vides informational resources, educa- tional materials, and a variety of events and activities for students, teachers, and others. Program partners in gov- ernment, industry, and the nonprofit sector unite to advance these efforts AGI Foundation: The Foundation is and continue the solid track record of the principal source of U.S. tax-deduct- success of this nearly two-decade-old ible endowment and programmatic initiative (www.earthsciweek.org). contributions to the American Geosci- ences Institute from industry, private foundations, and individual donors.

Center for Geoscience & Society: The Center links geoscience information to diverse, non-specialist audiences, with a particular emphasis on com- municating with decision makers at all levels and with educators in non-geo- science disciplines.

30 AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources Critical Issues Program

he Critical Issues Program is a new program at the American Geosci- Tences Institute. Its main purpose is to make geoscience information more discoverable to decision makers at all levels.

Critical Issues Website Policy & Critical Issues Webinars www.americangeosciences.org/ www.americangeosciences.org/ critical-issues policy-critical-issues/webinars The Critical Issues website is a hub for The Policy & Critical Issues programs decision-relevant, impartial geoscience host webinars on a variety of topics information on many of society’s most that bring geoscientists and decision pressing issues. The Critical Issues web- makers together to discuss potential site aggregates information from mul- solutions to challenges at the interface tiple geoscience organizations, making of geoscience and society, including it easy for users to find trusted, com- these past webinars: prehensive information from across the • Water as One Resource: How geosciences at one location. interactions between groundwater The website’s topic pages highlight and surface water impact resources from the geoscience com- water availability munity on climate, energy, hazards, • Desalination as a Source of mineral resources, and water, with Fresh Water easy-to-digest summaries, answers to • Data as a National Asset for common questions, portfolios of maps Decision Making and tools, and links to more detailed • Making Produced Water documents about the issue. More Productive • Assessing, Mitigating, and Communicating Flood Risk Critical Issues Research Database www.americangeosciences.org/ Please follow us at: critical-issues/research-database The Critical Issues Research Database @AGI_GeoIssues allows users to quickly search for top- ics, and link through to the documents on the websites of the organizations that produced the content. • Contains more than 4,000 factsheets, reports, position statements, and case studies; expanding monthly • Decision-relevant geoscience information, indexed for legislative staff and researchers • Links users to the original source of the documents • Searchable by location

AGI Critical Issues Forum: Regional Groundwater Resources 31 american geosciences AGIinstitute connecting earth, science, and people

American Geosciences Institute (AGI) 4220 King Street Alexandria, VA 22302-1507 U.S.A. Phone: +1 (703) 379-2480 Fax: +1 (703) 379-7563 [email protected] www.americangeosciences.org

AGI thanks the following organizations for their support of the Critical Issues Forum.

AIPG

1 9 6 3

SM

NGWThe Groundwater A Association