'• •
(11
1992 PROCEEDINGS 41st Annual Report
FOUR STATES IRRIGATION COUNCIL
_A OFFICERS DIRECTORS Ron Callahan, President Tom Simpson Las Animas, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Wesley Sell, Vice President Kenneth Nelson Scottsbluff, Nebraska Courtland, Kansas Chuck Lynch, Secretary-Treasurer Tom Knutson Sterling, Colorado Farwell, Nebraska Robert Petersen, Past President Norm DeMott North Platte, Nebraska Torrington, Wyoming
P.O. Box 163 Loveland, CO 80539
Commercial Director-at-Large Director-at-Large Director-at-Large Commercial Director-at-Large Mark Williams Jack Byers Brian Werner Rich Johansen Casper, Wyoming Billings, Montana Loveland, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska
April 7, 1992
Dear Members and Friends:
The 41st Annual Meeting of the Four States Irrigation Council in Fort Collins was very successful. Your continued support is very appreciated. much
The Board of Directors plans the annual program with you in mind. We attempt to present information that you can use on your canal systems and farms. The enclosed proceedings will be a permanent source of information presented at the conference. Planning is already in progress for the next annual meeting in Fort Collins on January 6-8, 1993, and you are encottraged to contact members of the Four States Board of Directors if you have ideas for the program. We want to fill the needs of the members for water systems O&M information.
Please plan to attend the next meeting and thank you for your interest and support.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Petersen 1991 President Four States Irrigation Council
1 PRESIDENTS OF THE FOUR STATES IRRIGATION COUNCIL
1952 E.O. Daggett 1953,54, 55 James L. Doyle 1956 S. L."Tom" Bowman 1957,58 Jack W. Boyd 1959 J. R. Barkley 1960 Arno Windscheffel 1961 Harry W. Kelly 1962 Art C. Splattstoesser 1963 Kyle F. Bryning 1964 Harold Fintus President, Phil Grant, Jr. Bob Petersen 1965 addresses the 1966 Ted Johnson Council 1967 Orvin Marquardt 1968 Harlan Seaworth Cpc, 1969 Charles Preuit 1970 Jim Pringle ri3 1971 Glen Graf 1972 Richard Dirmeyer 1973 L. E. "Buck" Whitman 1974 Jim Wannamaker 1975 Earl Phipps 1976 J.Kenneth Kennedy 1977 Millard Moore Rod Cox 1992 President, 1978 Ron Callahan 1979 William Howland 1980 Neal Payne 1981 Delmer Meyer 1982 LeGrande Page 1983 John Bigham 1984 Calvin Ewing 1985 Kenneth L. Whitmore 1986 Carl Freeman 1987 Ronald Wolf 1988 Jim Hokit 1989 Frank Dragoun 1990 Ben Dumler 1991 Bob Petersen Past President, Ron Callahan Ben Duniler 1992 1992 OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Officers Addresses Ron Callahan P.O. Box 141 President Las Animas,CO 81054(719)456-0720 Wesley Sell P.O. Box 307 Vice President Scottsbluff, NE 69361 (308)632-4921 (work) Chuck Lynch 23424 Road 33 Secretary/Treasurer Sterling, CO 80751 (303)522-8252 Robert Petersen P.O. Box 310 Past President North Platte, NE 69103 (308)532-9200 Directors Tom Simpson P.O. Box 440 Colorado Director Pueblo,CO 81002
Kenny Nelson P.O. Box 165 Kansas Director Courtland, KS 6693 Tom Knutson P.O. Box 137 Nebraska Director Farwell, NE 68838 (308)336-3341 Norm DeMott P.O. Box 717 Wyoming Director Torrington, WY 82240 (307)532-7031 Directors -at-Large P.O. Box 36900 Jack Byers Billings, MT 59107 Bureau of Reclamation (406)657-6214
Brian Werner P.O. Box 679 Northern Colorado Water Loveland,CO 80539 Conservancy District (303)667-2437 Commercial Directors-at-Large Rich Johansen 6200 Cornhusker Highway Lincoln, NE 68529 (402)466-9517 Mark Williams 125 Bryan Stock Trail Casper, WY 82609
3 FOUR STATES IRRIGATION COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1992
Four States Irrigation Council Board of Directors 1991-1992. L to R — Brian Werner, Ron Callahan, Tom Simpson, Norm DeMott, Chuck Lynch, Bob Petersen, Jack Byers, Ben Dumler, Rich Johansen,Tom Knutson, Kenneth Nelson, Darwin Householder, Bob Culver. DITC RIDER AWARD WINNERS (Awards received at the following year's Annual Meeting)
1991 Beryl Churchill Frank Dragoun " 1990 Jim Rawlings :sks • John Engen
1989 Jim Hokit
1988 Mars Carey
1987 Les Sheffield Beryl Churchill and Frank Dragoun received Ditchrider Brian Werner Awards at the Annual Banquet. The Award is given to those who 1986 Ken Whitmore have made outstanding contributions to the Council. 1985 Bill E. Martin Richard D. Black Donald Brosz
1983 J. Willis Ervin Connie Rothwell
1980 Joe Hall Charles Calhoun
1976 Gordon L. Cruse
1972 Neil W. Schild
1970 Nat Tolman
1968 O.A.(Bud) Dolven
1961 Ben H. King HEAD GATE AWARD WINNERS
Year Colorado Kansas
1991 Pete Nein Kenneth Nelson 1990 Frank Gould Bob Raney 1989 Ed Blackburn Fred Swoyer 1988 Robert W.Jesse Carl Freeman 1987 Jack Neutze Richard Black 1986 Kelly Boyce Wayne Bossert 1985 Milton H. Nelson Jim Purcell 1984 A.E. Seymour David Van Patten 1983 Bill Howland Jim Wannamaker
1982 Everett C. Long Delmer Meyer 1981 John Bigham Dewayne Lindberg 1980 Earl Phipps Leland Stroup 1979 Harlan Seaworth Kenneth Tuley 1978 William Pattie Opal Conrad 1977 J. Ben Nix Lyle Russell 1976 Tommy Thomson DeLynn R. Hay 1975 Frank Milenski Keith S. Krause 1974 Harold Anderson Glen Graf 1973 Clyde Helms,Jr. Clayton S. Flood 1972 Roy D. Cooper W.H. Sunderland 1971 J. Sid Nichols Keith G. Sebelius 1970 J.R. Barkley Floyd Freeborn Orvin Marquardt 1969 Felix L. Sparks Jack R. Nicholson 1968 Kyle Bryning Stephenson 1967 William Kelly Walter Ayers 1966 s Charles Boustead John Perry Sweat 1965 J.W. Preston Ward Douglas 1964 Fred Wright E.F. Munroe Donald J. Magaw 1963 H.P. Amsley Dr. E.H. Ahrens 1962 Kansas Headgate Dr. Ivan D. Wood Arno Windscheffel Award Winner 1961 Harold H. Christy Russ Herpich Kenneth Nelson 1960 M.C. Hinderlider R.V. Smrha 1959 Ralph Parshall 1958 Guy W. Caldwell 1957 Charles A. Lory Chris A. Green
6 HEAD GATE AWARD WINNERS Year Nebraska Wyoming
1991 Virginia Smith Gordon W. Fassett 1990 Stan Christensen Winston Churchill 1989 C.J. Hargleroad Howard A. Haas 1988 Wes Sell Ed Grenier 1987 Henry Lange Neal S. Payne 1986 Homer Loutzenheiser Bill Franks 1985 Robert B. Crosby J. Kenneth Kennedy 1984 Calvin Ewing Harold Shreve 1983 Keith Davis Henry Garrelts Vernon Laverack R.D. Dirmeyer 1982 Charles Harrison LeGrande Page 1981 Robert Thomas Millard Gowin 1980 Dr. Leo Beattie Myron Goodson 1979 Lester Johnson George Christopulos 1978 Lee Vohland Donald Brosz 1977 C.P. Shaughnessy Ralph Wells 1976 Kenneth E. Carpenter Peter F. Anker 1975 G.E. Exley Earl Michael 1974 Vernon Krueger L.E. "Buck" Whitman 1973 Lawrence M.John Floyd A. Bishop 1972 T.A. Johnson R.M. Sensintaffer 1971 Stanley J. Bowman Charles H.Preuit 1970 A.C. Splattstoesser Floyd H.Pease 1969 Harold T. Fintus William R. Jones 1968 Don Thompson Marlin T. Kurtz 1967 Sen. Stanley Matzke .Oscar Barnes 1966 Dan Jones G.N. Goodrich 1965 Bob Colson Wilma Lang 1964 James P. Adams Earl Lloyd 1963 A.L. Hoyt Harry W. Kelly 1962 Ralph 0.Canaday W.J. Wehrli 1961 E.O. Daggett E.T. Bower 1960 Val Kuska I.J. Matthews 1959 Harry Bashore Dr. J.B. Fuller 1958 George E. Johnson H.T. Person 1957 C.P. Peterson L.C. Bishop
7 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES March 22, 1991 The Four States Irrigation Board of Directors met at Northern Colorado Conservancy District Office at Loveland,Colorado at 8:00 A.M. MST.
Members present were Darwin Householder,Chuck Lynch, Norm DeMott,Jim Rawlings,Brian Werner,Bob Petersen,Ron Callahan,Bob Culver, Rich Johansen and Wesley Sell. Absent: Nebraska Director Tom Knutson.
The minutes of the January 9,1991 Board Meeting were approved as mailed. Mr. Lynch made the motion they be approved. Mr. Householder seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion passed.
The Annual Business Meeting minutes of January 11, 1991 were approved as mailed. Mr. Householder made the motion that they be approved. Mr. DeMott seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion passed.
The minutes of the January 11, 1991 meeting were approved as mailed. Mr. DeMott moved they be approved. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion passed.
The audit committee met March 21, 1991 at 4:00 P.M. at Northern Colorado's office. The audit committee consist of the State Directors. Present were Mr. DeMott, Mr. Householder, Mr. Sell and Treasurer Ron Callahan. At our meeting the next day, March 22,1991, Mr. Householder moved that the audit be accepted. Mr. DeMott seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion passed.
The treasurer report was presented by Mr. Callahan. He reported total cash on hand as of March 21,1991 is $29,069.46. Mr. Householder made the motion to accept the treasurer report. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion passed.
The proceedings for our last annual meeting was discussed. Brian has been working on getting everything together. Some speeches have been transcribed, however, there are some of the participants talks that he has no copies of. Brian has the speeches given by Joe Hall and Mike Jess. Jim Rawlings will see what he can do about getting transcripts from the Bureau people who participated and the State Directors will get them from the participants from their state. Brian said he should have them back no later than April 19, 1991.
The next order of business was a report from Mr. DeMott on the summer tour. Mr. DeMott read a letter he had received from Beryl Churchill who is coordinating the tour arrangements with Mr. DeMott and Mr. Werner. Brian made copies of the letter for all that were present and Mr. Sell will send Director Knutson a copy with his minutes. Ms. Churchill has everything pretty well tentatively lined up except for possibly a few odds and ends.
The Board discussed inviting the Upper Missouri Water Users Board to go on the tour.
(Continued on Next Page) 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued) Jim Rawlings will contact them and see if they are interested..Registration charge was discussed. Mr. Householder made the motion to set registration at $35.00 per person. Mr. Callahan seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion carried. It was reported that there are 2 motels available at Powell,tour headquarters. They are the Kings Inn and the Super 8. It was suggested the Board make reservations at the Kings Inn. Tentative rates at the Kings inn are $44.00-I bed and $54.00 -2 beds. No quote on Super 8.
We also discussed having a meeting at the Kings Inn at 7:30 P.M. on August 7,1991 with the Upper Missouri Water Users. Mr. Rawlings will check with them. Our business meeting would follow at approximately 8:00 P.M.
It was suggested by Brian we do something for Ms. Churchill for all the work and time she is putting in arranging the tour. We all agreed to do something and there were suggestions but no final decision was made. Mr. Petersen suggested we give it to her the night of the barbecue. From the discussion, it is my opinion, that we more or less leave it up to Mr. Werner and Mr. Petersen on what to do for her.
Mr. Werner also suggested getting a letter out on the tour as soon as possible so that people can get the tour dates on their calendars. Later on we would send out all the information in regard to the tour.
Mr. Werner reported that at the present time,Jeff Dahlstrom, photographer, would be going on the tour providing his boss did not change his plans.
Brochure: Jeff Dahlstrom met with the Board and reported he has everything pretty well lined up to go to the printer. The language had been proofread and is in order. The brochure includes a small information box that can be used for various things such as State Directors could put their name,address and phone number in case there were questions about 4-States. There were questions about the address on the back cover. Mr. Householder thought we should use an address within the Four States Region. Northern Colorado Conservancy District was suggested. Mr. Werner said he would have to clear it with his District
At our October 1990 Board Meeting, we approved $2,300.00 for 5000 brochures. Because of some changes the cost will be slightly higher. Mr. Callahan made the motion to use the full cover picture on the front page, the tan colored paper on the inside pages,and the Colorado Conservancy District address;if cleared by Mr. Werner. Also, to approve the additional expense for the brochure. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion carried.
There was some discussion about changing banks. It was decided to leave the account where it is at the present time.
Balance in the now checking account is $1,372.62. Any time the balance drops below $1,000.00 there is a penalty charge. We have several bills we will have to pay in the (Continued on Next Page) 9 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued) next few months. Mr. Householder made a motion to withdraw all but $5,000.00 out of our certificate of deposit #22423 at maturity date which is April 20,1991 and deposit it into our now checking account,The certificate as of March 21, 1991 has a value of $9,899. 54. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll call: Motion carried.
Next on the agenda was to start getting some type of program lined up for our 41st annual meeting. First we need to pick a theme. This is a list of the themes that were suggested:
a. Irrigation Serves Everyone b. Irrigation Supports Agriculture c. Irrigation Supports Agriculture; Our Leading Industry d. Irrigation Benefits All e. Irrigation: Water Resources Paying Partners f. Americas Most Crucial Industry g. Irrigation A Paying Partner h. Irrigators Paying Partners i. The Economy From Irrigation j. Irrigation Managing,Conserving Resources k. Conserving Resources 1. Conserving Water Resources m.Food Supply From Irrigation
Mr. Culver made the motion to use as our theme "Conserving Water Resources." Mr. Callahan seconded the motion.
The following is a tentative proposed agenda for the 1992 program. Time schedules are also tentative.
Wednesday -January 8,1992 1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. -Meeting between water users/Districts and U.S.B.R. Regional Directors and Staff. 2:00 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.- Registration in lobby. 3:45 P.M.- 5:15 P.M.- Budweiser tour- Optional - bus or drive your own car. 5:30 P.M.-Board of Directors Meeting 5:30 P.M.- 7:00 P.M.- Welcome mixer - cash bar. 7:00 P.M. - Dinner on your own.
Thursday- January 9,1992 7:00 A.M.- 8:00 A.M.-View Commercial Exhibits with complimentary breakfast. Morning session - Chairman - President Bob Petersen 8:30 A.M.- Call to order - Bob Petersen Introduction of Commercial Exhibitors- Bob Culver
Discussed about having the exhibitors in front of the meeting room instead of on the sides or the rear of the room.
(Continued on Next Page) 10 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued)
8:45 A.M.- 9:00 A.M.- Roger Patterson - U.S.B.R. Update
The remainder of the Thursday morning agenda was discussed. No time was set.
Tom Donnelly was mentioned as a possible speaker. Mr. Petersen sent a letter to Tom and never did get an answer from him. Brian said that he would contact him and see if he could get him to commit himself. The subject - Double subsidy and R.R.A versus N.W.R.A. was brought up. For speakers on the subject, maybe we could get staff people from Gejdenson or Miller to speak or maybe even someone who serves on the committee. Bob Petersen thought maybe Tom Knutson may have some contacts or suggestions. Roger Patterson may know someone so we have a lot of avenues we could check on. Jim Rawlings was to ask Roger if he would moderate this session.
Brian mentioned that as a fill in, if needed,Colorado River Water Association put together 8 or 9 years ago a movie that takes about 30 minutes titled Colorado Portrait on the River.
Tentative 12:15 P.M. - 1:30 P.M. - Luncheon Keynote speaker- Dennis Underwood,if he can come. Moderator- Ron Callahan.
Thursday afternoon session - Workshops 2:00 P.M. - 3:15 P.M. - Workshop A- Rich Johansen - Moderator. L.E.P.A.- Low Energy Pressure Application- Keith Jardiemi. Irrigation Management - Brian will check and see who he can get to speak on this subject and also to speak on reuse pits.
Workshop B - Bob Culver - Moderator Reuse Pits - Mr. Sell will check with Dean Younts irrigation specialist with the University of Nebraska Panhandle Station or with Phil Rickey engineer with the Soil Conservation Service.
Water Management - Bob and Brian will check on speakers for this subject.
Workshop C - John Engen - Moderator. One subject - Surge Irrigation - Brian and Mr. Sell will check and see who we can come up with. Some operators who have had actual experience with the surge system was Brian's suggestion. He would check with Martin Gary and Mr. Sell will check with Jerry Dillman. Bob Petersen suggested that the University of Nebraska had a workshop in North Platte in February, however,he was unable to attend but he thought possibly we could get someone from that program who could speak on the surge system and also on water measurement.
3:30 P.M. - 4:45 P.M.- Repeat Workshops A,B & C 4:45 P.M. - Caucus of individual States 6:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. - Social Hour - Cash Bar 7:00 P.M. - Awards Banquet - no decision on entertainment.
Friday's Session - January 10,1992 (Continued on Next Page) 11 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued) 7:00 A.M..- 8:00 A.M.- Commercial Exhibits - Complimentary Breakfast. 8:00 A.M.- 8:30 A.M.- Annual Business Meeting - Bob Petersen Presiding- Election of officers. Announcement of State Directors. 8:45 A.M.-9:15 A.M.- Jim Rawlings - Moderator
Cheyenne Flood- Bob Petersen will contact Gary Lewis, Civil Engineer who was an expert witness on the Cheyenne Flood lawsuit. He has supposedly some kind of program.
9:15 A.M.- 9:45 A.M.- Emergency Plan on Flood Control for Dam Safety on the North Platte River - Wayne Treers - Bureau of Reclamation, Mills, WY 9:45 A.M.- 10:00 A.M.-Refreshment Break 10:00 A.M.- 10:30 A.M.- Cap the 2 programs off possibly with someone from the Bureau or Brian has a program - Directors, Districts Liabilities
The board wants to have everything wrapped up by 11:00 A.M. Mr. Petersen suggested that next year after our Annual Meeting we send thank you letters to all program participants. Brian reported he met with Colorado Badge and Trophies and they have the banners and are making the necessary changes and additions. They also are working on a ditchrider awards banner. Also, Brian told them he would like them back before the summer tour so that we may be able to display them at the Kings Inn lobby or some place.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:12 A.M. January 8,1992 The meeting of the Board of Directors of the Four States Irrigation Council was held on January 8,1992. The meeting was called to order by President Robert Petersen at 5:30 p.m. at the University Park Holiday Inn in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Attendees: Robert L. Petersen,President; Ron Callahan, Vice President;. Ben Dumler, Past President; Bob Culver,Commercial Director; Rich Johansen, Commercial Director; Norm DeMott, Wyoming Director; Chuck Lynch. Colorado Director; Tom Knutson, Nebraska Director; Jack Byers, Director at Large; Jim Rawlings,Bureau of Reclamation.
Absent: Wes Sell, Secretary/Treasurer; Darwin Householder, Kansas Director.
Brian Werner announced that Commissioner Dennis Underwood canceled today. He is sending Bill McDonald to fill his speaking engagement.
The Holiday Inn Staff met with the Board to finalize the plan for the convention. A few small changes were made and everything is set to go.
Brian Werner asked that we discuss the refund policy. A heavy snowstorm causes some to cancel. Brian said that most had given enough time to cancel. Board approved about 15 to receive refgnds, (continued on Next Page) 12 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued) Candy Werth is helping Brian with the many duties to put on the Convention. Brian invited Candy and her husband to attend the Banquet without charge. Tom Knutson moved that Brian Werner use the checks that Wes Sell sent to pay the Holiday Inn Ft. Collins Charter,Joe Jeffrey and Colorado Badge. Jack Byers second the motion.
Wes Sell being ill was not able to attend sent a balance sheet to the meeting. As of Jan. 3,1992, we had $9,211.87 in the checking account. There is also $22,448.85 in Certificates of Deposit, making a total net worth at $31,660.72. Ron Callahan requested that Jeff Dahlstrom take individual pictures of the Board to put in the Proceedings.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Due to the illness of Wes Sell, Sec./Treas., Chuck Lynch took the minutes of the meeting.
January 10,1992 The Four States Irrigation Council board met at the University Park Holiday Inn, Fort Collins, Colorado at 11:45 a.m.
1. Met with Holiday Inn staff, Christian Hawkins and Todd McIntyre. Discussed next year's convention dates and place. Moved by Tom Knutson and second by Rich Johanson that the convention be held at the same place and the dates would be January 6,7 and 8, 1993. Motion carried. We will meet with the hotel staff at the last meeting before the convention. The meeting will be held at the University Park Holiday Inn.
2. Bob Petersen will do the letterheads again.
3. The spring meeting will be held at Northern Colorado Conservancy District office. The audit committee will meet at 4:00 p.m. April 2,1992. The board will meet at 8:00 a.m. April 3, 1992.
4. Tom Knutson is to get a check from Wes Sell for $5,000.00 to present to the National Water Resources Association. There was some discussion on the Clean Water Act. Tom Knutson is to draft a letter for each State Director to send to their congressman.
5. Get all information in for the proceeding. Start thinking about speakers and entertainment for next meeting.
6. Bob Petersen moved we give Jeff Dahlstrom and Candy Werth $50.00 for the extra work they put in to make the convention a success. Second by Chuck Lynch. Motion passed.
(Continued on Next Page) 13 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES (Continued) 7. Bob Petersen asked about putting some drink tickets in the registration packet. Rich Johanson said he talked to the commercial people and the majority were against them. Rich thought they could add a few bucks to the display. They were very much against that. Bob thought that we could add$5.00 to the registration and give them a couple of drink tickets. This makes these a reimbursable expense Did not make a decision on this.
8. Approximately $12,600.00 was brought in from registration. So far $9,000.00 in expenses and the refunds about $930.00.
ATTENDEES: Ron Callahan,President Chuck Lynch,Secretary/Treasurer Brian Werner,Director Robert L. Petersen,Past President Kenny Nelson,Kansas Director Mark Williams, Commercial Director Tom Knutson, Nebraska Director Jim Rawlings, U.S.B.R. Rich Johanson, Commercial Director Tom Simpson,Colorado Director Jack Byers, Director Ben Dumler
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Annual Membership Meeting Minutes January 10, 1992 The Four States Irrigation Council membership met at the University Park Holiday Inn, Fort Collins, Colorado on January 10, 1992 at 8:30 a.m. President Robert L. Petersen introduced the new Directors: Kenny Nelson,Kansas; Tom Simpson, Colorado and Mark Williams, Commercial.
Nominees for officers were Ron Callahan,President; Wes Sell, Vice-President; and Chuck Lynch,Secretary/Treasurer. Moved by Ben Dumler that we accept the nominees for office. Motion was second by Ev Long. Passed unanimously. Robert L. Petersen presented the gavel to Ron Callahan, who took over as President.
Norm DeMott moved and Frank Dragoun second to make a donation of $5,000.00 to the National Water Resources Association. Motion carried.
Ron Callahan presented the President's award to Robert L.Petersen. Ron also presented an extra mile award to Robert L. Petersen, Ben Dumler and Brian Werner for the hard work they have been doing. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
14 PROGRAM 41st Annual Meeting of Four States Irrigation Council January 8- 10, 1992 University Park Holiday Inn Fort Collins, Colorado "Conserving Water Resources" Wednesday. January 8,1992 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Meetings between Water Users/Districts & USBR Regional Director and Staff 3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Tour of Anheuser- Busch Brewery and Gift Shop (Bus Provided)
Following Tour Board of Directors Meeting
2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Registration
5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Welcome Mixer- -Cash Bar
7:00 p.m. Dinner on your own Thursday. January 9. 1992 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. View Commercial Exhibits with Complimentary Continental Breakfast
7:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Registration
MORNING SESSION Chairman,Bob Petersen,President 8:30 National Water a.m. CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME Resources Association Executive Vice Introduction of Commercial President,Tom Exhibitors- Bob Culver Donnelly gave the Keynote , Luncheon Address 8:45 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. KEYNOTE ADDRESS Bill McDonald, Assistant Commissioner for Resource Management Bureau of Reclamation 15 PRO GRAM
9:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. "U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Emergency Plans" Bob Pike, USBR Safety of Dams Coordinator, Billings, MT
John Lawson,USBR Project Manager Mills, WY
10:15 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. Refreshment Break
10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. "Liability Issues- The Cheyenne Flood" Gary Lewis,PhD, P.E. HDR Engineering, Denver,CO
11.45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. 'Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Criteria" Steve Spann, Colorado State Engineer's Office,
12:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Federal Legislative Proposals and Their Potential Impacts to Water Users Greg Hobbs,Principal Counsel, NCWCD,Loveland, CO
Thursday. January 9,1992 LUNCHEON—Vice President Ron Callahan presiding Luncheon Address—Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive Vice President, National Water Resources Association AFTERNOON SESSION WORKSHOP A 2:00 p .m.- 3:15 p .m. Bob Culver -moderator, "LEPA Center Pivot Project," Keith Jardine, Grand Island, NE Wes Robbins, ASCS, Burlington
WORKSHOP B Ron Callahan- moderator "Surge Irrigation," Dean Yonts, University of Nebraska- Panhandle Station, Bob Gifford, Jr., Farmer/Rancher, Harrisburg, NE
16 PROGRAM
WORKSHOP C Tom Knutson/Chuck Lynch - moderators,"Water Conservation and Resource Management- The Bureau of Reclamation's newly formed Water Conservation Center," Jack Byers, USBR,Billings, MT
3:15 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Refreshment Break
3:30 p.m.- 4:45 p.m. WORKSHOP A(Same) WORKSHOP B (Same) WORKSHOP C(Same)
4:45 p.m. Caucus of Individual States (Colorado, Kansas state directors terms expire)
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Social Hour Cash Bar
7:00 p.m. AWARDS BANQUET Bob Petersen presiding Introduction of Guests Presentation of Awards— Headgate ••• Commercial Director Ditchrider Entertainment "How the REA Wiped Out the WPA," Dr. Joe Jeffrey, Veterinarian/Rancher,Lexington, NE Friday, January 10,1992 7:00 a.m.- 8:20 a.m. Commercial Exhibits viewing with Complimentary Continental MORNING SESSION Breakfast(Atrium) 8:15 a.m. -9:00 a.m. Chairman,Darwin Householder Annual Business Meeting and Election of Officers (Bob Petersen presiding) - Announcement of 1992 State Directors -Election of 1992 Officers -Presidents Award Recap of 1991 Summer Tour 17 PRO GRAM 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. "USBR Update" Director, Great Plains Region, Billings, MT
9:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. "Nonpoint Source Pollution -An Ongoing Study" Gary Hoffner, Agriculture Resources Specialist, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
10:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. "What To Say when the News Media Calls"
Videotape and Discussion Bob Petersen, NPPID Brian Werner, NCWCD
11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Meeting Wrap up Ron Callahan
11:45 a.m. Adjournment
12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Board of Directors Meeting
Four States members enjoying informal conversation.
18 COMMERCIAL EXHIBITORS Applied Biochemists,Inc. John Deere Ind. Eq. Co. Bill Ratajczyk Dick Coleman 6120 W. Douglas Avenue 61 Inverness Drive East Milwaukee, WI 53218 Englewood,CO 80112
Armtec Water Control Products John Deere Ind. Eq. Co. Murray McCaig Ted Christie 2023 N. Gateway Ave,Suite 104 1900 S.W. 50th Fresno, CA 93727 Lincoln, NE 68506 Big R Mfg. & Dist. Monsanto Rich Warner Dean Hendrickson P.O. Box 1290 Greeley, CO 80632 NACO Industries,Inc. Bob Culver CH2M Hill 3445 Jones Gary Hermann Garden City,KS 67846 6060 So. Willow Drive Greenwood Village, CO 80111-5112 Nebraska Machinery Bill Boyd Combelt Chemical Co. Scott Benfer Nebraska Plastics,Inc. 3127 W. Clyde Place Rod Headley Denver,CO 80211 Box 45 Cozad,NE 69130 Diamond Plastics Mars Garey P & R Surge Systems P.O. Box 1608 Harold Henry Grand Island, NE 68802 P.O. Box 3361 Lubbock,TX 79452 Diamond Plastics Doyle Hester Pipe Plus Joe Geers Empire Irrigation 7108 S. Alton Way,Bldg. L Stephen Spear Englewood,CO 80112 237 22nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 Stewart & Stevenson Rusty Anderson Fresno Valve & Castings,Inc. Ted Johnson Stewart & Stevenson Mike Cunningham Bob Culver receives the John Deere Commercial Peter Gillet U-Mix Products Directors plaque Rich Johansen from Rich John Deere 6200 Comhusker Highway Johanson. John Engen Lincoln, NE 68529
John Deere Valve & Filter Corporation J. W. Graham Richard Rech 61 Inverness Drive Englewood,CO (Continued On Next Page) 19 COMMERCIAL EXHIBITORS (Continued)
•• Waterman Industries Sales,Inc. David Lott P.O. Box 862 Garden City,KS 67846
Wyoming Concrete Pipe E. Mark Williams 725 Bryan Stock Trail Casper, WY 82609
Commercial Exhibitors being introduced to Council members.
BIG "R" MANUFACTURING & DISTRIBUTING, INC.
One of the many Commercial Exhibitor displays.
20 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES
by J. William McDonald Assistant Commissioner - Resources Management Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado INTRODUCTION It's imperative that we manage our water resources more efficiently and effectively, including conserving water resources TODAY,or our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences.
The theme of your program,"Conserving Water Resources," is an important and timely topic, and one that is on everybody's mind these days.
One reason for this, of course, is because of the recent drought, particularly in the West, but also in other parts of the Nation.
A second reason is that the Nation is becoming increasingly aware of various water resource problems.
For example, many groundwater supplies have been severely depleted, causing overdraft problems,land subsidence, and sea water intrusion.
Water quality problems abound.
Instream flow issues relative to fisheries and recreational boating are being confronted nearly everywhere.
Today, we have concerns not even imagined by most Westerners 40 years ago.
Today, we are at a crossroads. We must take cooperative actions to conserve water resources. We must join forces to shape our water future,.
I'd like to talk to you this morning about the challenges which we in Reclamation believe lie ahead for water resource providers and managers,and about some of the activities which we have underway to meet those challenges. I'd also like to touch on the benefits of partnerships in meeting water conservation goals. WATER MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES TODAY AND TOMORROW Perhaps the greatest challenge facing us today is the diminishing margin of reserve between supply and demand. This translates into an increased likelihood of periodic shortages and conflicts between competing uses.
(Continued on Next Page)
21 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued) Our margin of reserve has diminished because:
Very few new projects have been constructed in the past 10-15 years, be they Federal or non-Federal projects.
There are new demands for water—for fish and wildlife use,for recreation, for protection of endangered species—and increasing demands for water to meet the M and I needs of our growing population.
Long-standing Native American water rights claims are being resolved.
Water supplies that may once have been available to us are no longer available because they have become contaminated.
And,finally, our infrastructure is aging. The average age of Reclamation's facilities, and of many other water providers'facilities, is 40 years. Consequently,some projects have become less efficient and,in some cases, their yield has diminished.
How will we respond to this situation?
How do we continue to provide for sustained economic growth on the one hand and an improved environment and quality of life on the other?
How do we increase our usable water supply?
How do we appropriately balance competing uses? SOME SOLUTIONS Finding answers to these questions won't be easy. In some respects, solutions in the past were relatively simple: one often just built another dam. Today, there are no simple solutions to our future needs.
But there are solutions. .
1. More Efficient and Effective Resource Use
One solution is to make more efficient and effective use of our resources. We must practice better water conservation.
Reclamation intends to take a leadership role in this regard. We've already established Water Conservation Advisory Centers in the Great Plains,Pacific Northwest, and Upper Colorado Regions. We plan to open two more centers this year.
These centers will be clearinghouses for information on up-to-date water conservation techniques, cooperative approaches to education and outreach, and solutions to water conservation problems. (Continued on Next Page)
22 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued)
These centers will also provide technical assistance to districts to identify water conservation opportunities,such as improved scheduling of water deliveries, conveyance system improvements, better measuring devices, etc. We will also help districts prepare and implement water conservation plans as requested.
Reclamation's water conservation program will also include:
improving the efficiency of project operations; and
conducting research and encouraging technology transfer to improve resources management and development. For example, our efforts in this regard will include work on desalination, development of more salt tolerant crops,improving existing irrigation and drainage technologies,investigation of conjunctive use opportunities, and development of water reuse opportunities.
Water Conservation-Project-Specific Activities
Let me illustrate Reclamation's ongoing activities by giving you some specific examples.
Significant water conservation is being realized through the use of realtime data networks. These networks provide water managers with the up-to-date information needed to make sound decisions about project operations and water deliveries.
In the Great Plains Region,for example,a state- of-the-art network system is being used. This system,known as Hydromet, utilizes a ground station/satellite computer link to collect data that enables managers to make operational decisions based on current reservoir levels and streamflows.
AgriMet is another satellite-based network that can be piggybacked onto Hydromet. AgriMet helps conserve water and energy by providing farmers climatic data that helps them determine when and how much to water their crops, and when to schedule the irrigations to be most beneficial.
.4, The second example can be found in Pavillion, Wyoming, where the Midvale Irrigation District, in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, installed automatic control gates at the Wind River Diversion Dam,the major diversion point for the Wyoming Canal. This captures excess flow in the river, making more water available to the Riverton Unit, thus mitigating at least a portion of the water shortages experienced during drought conditions.
This system has greatly improved the delivery of water to Midvale,conserving 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet of water per year.
Other benefits derived from the automation of the canal gates are better regulation of Wind River flows below the diversion dam;increased power production at Pilot Butte (Continued on Next Page)
23 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued) Powerplant; decreased demand on Bull Lake Reservoir water; and more constant flows in Bull Lake Creek.
Over the last five years, the Sargent Irrigation District in Sargent, Nebraska, has replaced 46,000 feet of open laterals with 40,300 feet of PVC pipe. The district hopes to install an additional 64,200 feet of pipe over the next five years.
Also in Nebraska, we just used supplemental drought funds to finance the Corps of Engineers' repair of erosion damage and extension of riprap on the upstream face of Harlan County Dam. This allowed the dam to hold more water, extending its conservation capacity and use to irrigators.
The Kansas-Bostwick Irrigation District in Courtland,Kansas, has implemented a lateral piping program that allows for sharing the cost of the pipe with the local water users. The district pays all labor costs and 30 percent of the cost of the pipe for this program. The local water user pays for 70 percent of the pipe cost. The program has been so successful that there is a waiting list of users wanting to participate in the program.
Another benefit generated from this program is that once open laterals are replaced with buried pipe, water users can convert to the Use of gated pipe for deliveries. A district assessment of the program revealed that over 56 percent of onfarm irrigation is now being done with gated pipe.
In South Dakota,the Belle Fourche Diversion Dam was replaced as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation of the Belle Fourche Project designed to make it more efficient. When completed, the upgraded facilities will save an estimated 20,000 acre-feet of water each year.
2. Increasing the Usable Water Supply
Now let's talk a little bit about a second solution to our future water needs: increasing the usable water supply. • One method the Department of the Interior is pursuing to increase the usable water supply is to develop low-cost, practical water treatment technologies.
Such technologies could make saline, brackish, or other contaminated waters usable by converting them to fresh water.
We have a substantial desalination program underway,and this summer Secretary Lujan announced the initiation of a wastewater reclamation effort in southern California. Some estimates show that wastewater reclamation could add two million acre-feet of water to that State's usable supply.
(Continued on Next Page)
24 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued) An added benefit of developing these technologies is that they could help meet Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
3. Improved Management
A third solution for meeting future demands lies in the improved management of our existing supplies.
For example, we can manage our water resources on a basin -wide or system-wide basis,instead of piecemeal, as we often do now.
Where possible, we need to conjunctively use ground and surface waters, using surface water when it's available, and placing more reliance on groundwater during prolonged dry periods. We need to replenish ground water when possible,so it will continue to be available in dry periods.
For example, we are investigating ground water recharge methodologies,in participation with several western states, water districts, and others, through the High Plains Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project. The York, Nebraska, Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, was the first project under the High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration Program. It was designed to test the feasibility of supplementing groundwater using local surface water. The project is unique among its counterparts in other states in that it is utilizing spreading basins and testing three types of recharge techniques at the same site. The project sponsor, the Upper Big Blue Natural Resources District, is paying about 20 percent of the $1 .9 million cost.
We also need to identify opportunities to make multiple uses of the same water supply, particularly when those uses are not consumptive.
A case in point is Box Butte Reservoir in Nebraska, where chronically low water levels were affecting the reservoir's fishery and recreational value. We worked with the Mirage Flats Irrigation District and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to resolve this problem to everyone's benefit. The Parks Commission financed conservation improvements to the District's delivery system, allowing the District to use its water more efficiently. This,in turn,left more water in the reservoir for fish and wildlife and for recreationists.
Waterbanks also offer significant water management opportunities. Idaho,for example,storage space in the reservoirs is "sold." If the "owner" doesn't use the water, another user can buy it. The water is priced low enough that basically anyone—fish and wildlife interests, power interests,farmers—can afford to go to the water bank.
(Continued on Next Page)
25 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued)
PARTNERSHIPS We've looked at the challenges facing us and some potential solutions to the problems that lie ahead.
I hope I also conveyed,in the examples I cited, the need for cooperation. The Commissioner believes, as does Secretary Lujan,that partnerships are the best way to meet the challenges we face- no one will be able to meet these challenges by themselves.
Partnerships are not new,for us or for you. We have long worked together to meet Western water needs.
But now our partnerships—and yours—need to be much broader. They involve everyone interested in water resources— state and local governments and irrigation entities, AND environmental organizations, recreational interests, and other federal resource agencies.
Effective partnerships will ensure that we are making the best, most efficient and effective use of our increasingly limited water and related resources. NEED FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING The 1990's and the next century pose significant challenges for all of us as we try to continue to provide for sustained economic growth,an improved environment and quality of life.
Until the mid-1980's, Reclamation's primary emphasis was on building the infrastructure. At that time, with most of the foreseeable infrastructure in place or being completed, we began placing greater emphasis on resource management and protection of existing resources for more efficient and effective use.
Some call this the "new" Bureau. We don't. We believe this is a natural evolution.
The Nation's first priority in settling the West was to enable it to contribute to the country's economic growth and well-being, to help establish and sustain an economy.
Reclamation helped accomplish this. Now we have greater opportunities and more flexibility to manage and protect our water and related resources.
Identifying new policies and approaches to meeting these challenges calls for strategic planning. At the Bureau of Reclamation, we have been working hard on a Strategic Plan for the past two years.
The plan will provide a broad,long-term framework for the management, development,and protection of our water resources. It embraces many of the concepts (Continued on Next Page)
26 CONSERVING WATER RESOURCES (Continued)
and strategies that I talked about today, as well as others. It recognizes State primacy for basic water rights and allocation.
There are twenty-five separate program elements grouped into five sections in our Strategic Plan. The sections are:
Managing and Developing Resources. Establishes resource conservation, management,and development goals.
Protecting the Environment. In recognition of the Nation's increased environmental knowledge and changing societal values, establishes goals for achieving an environmentally sound program.
Safeguarding the Investment. Has as goals the maintenance of our projects for the benefit of future generations, and the recovery of applicable Federal costs of building the infrastructure.
Building Partnerships. Goal is to build partnerships with Federal and non-Federal entities to promote the cooperative, effective stewardship of natural resources.
Fostering Quality Management. Organizational excellence goals that focus on program effectiveness, quality of work,and a fiscally responsible, cost effective and ethical business operation.
Many of you will be asked to review this Strategic Plan. The Commissioner hopes to be able to send you a copy of it before too long. We would like your honest,candid comments on the plan, and on the direction we're taking. CONCLUSION Reclamation believes that the next century will pose many challenges and opportunities for those of us in the business of managing the West's scarce water resources.
We in Reclamation look forward to meeting those challenges and taking advantage of the opportunities they offer. And we certainly look forward to working with you in the years ahead,for it is only through cooperative efforts that we will be able to conserve our water resources and develop and implement the creative solutions that will allow us to successfully meet these challenges.
Thank you.
27 RECLAMATION'S SAFETY OF DAMS PROGRAM by Bob Pike Regional Safety of Dams Coordinator Bureau of Reclamation Billings, Montana
INTRODUCTION Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Reclamation's Safety of Dams(SOD) program. I will present a general background of the SOD program as a lead-in to John Lawson's discussion of Reclamation's SOD activities on the North Platte River. HISTORY AND AUTHORIZATION Dam safety is not a new program in the United States. California initiated it's SOD program in the late 1920's following the failure of St. Francis Dam. Reclamation dam safety activities were initiated at the same time as our review of maintenance program in 1948. In 1965, Reclamation added the Examination of Existing Structures program to specifically review the hydrologic and seismic adequacy of our dams.
Reclamation's formal SOD program was initiated with the passage of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. The Act mandated that the Secretary of the Interior perform such modifications as.he determined to be reasonably necessary to preserve the structural safety of Reclamation's dams. The purpose of the Act was to correct deficiencies related to changes in state-of-the-art design criteria, not deficiencies related to normal deterioration or lack of maintenance of the structures. Congress authorized $100,000,000 for the accomplishment of the provisions of the Act. Finally, the costs related to SOD modifications were made non-reimbursable.
In 1984, Congress amended the Act to provide an additional $650,000,000 for the accomplishment of the SOD program. However,the Amendments required reimbursement of a portion of the cost of modifying the dams. Specifically, the Amendments required that 15 percent of the cost of modifying the dam be allocated to authorized purposes of the structure. The Amendments included a specific exception for Jackson Lake Dam where modification costs were allocated in accordance with the allocation of operations and maintenance charges. RECLAMATION'S POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR SAFETY OF DAMS Justification for SOD modifications is founded on three basic principles. Corrective actions are justified by:
1. clearly demonstrating that the dam would fail under potential loading conditions, and corrective actions would
(Continued on Next Page)
28 RECLAMATION'S SAFETY OF DAMS (Continued) 2. reduce or eliminate the loss of life associated with dam failure; or
3. produce greater economic benefits than the cost of modifications. How are potential SOD deficiencies identified? Reclamation's review process starts with a thorough field examination of the structure as well as a review of design and construction records. Often there is not sufficient information to fully assess the safety of the structure. If more information is necessary, additional field investigations(such as drilling programs) and structural monitoring is performed. When sufficient data is available to thoroughly analyze the safety of the dam,a decision is made as to whether identified deficiencies would warrant modifications. This is known as the Modification Decision Analysis.
If modifications are deemed necessary, a team of specialists is formed to develop feasible corrective action alternatives. This point in the SOD process is known Corrective as the Action Study (CAS). The CAS process is designed to evaluate structural and non-structural corrective actions that could be taken to reduce risks to the public that would result from failure of the dam. Modifications identified under the CAS process are identified in a Safety of Dams Modification Report. The Modification Report identifies a preferred course of action to be recommended by the Commissioner of Reclamation to the Office of Management and Budget,and to Congress. Modifications are initiated upon congressional approval as specified by Safety the of Dams Act,as amended,along with the appropriation of funds for the preferred corrective action. SAFETY OF DAMS DEFICIENCIES Typical deficiencies reviewed under the SOD program can be grouped into the following three categories.
1. Stability related deficiencies under both normal and seismic loading conditions. 2. Seepage related deficiencies. Excessive seepage pressures can lead to stability problems or can causethe removal of material from the embankment or the foundation,leading to the eventual failure of the structure. . 3. Hydrologic deficiencies. This type of deficiency is related to the inability of the dam to safely pass large floods due to inadequate spillway capacity.
Our emphasis today will be on hydrologic related dam safety deficiencies. Many of Reclamation's dams were constructed in the early to mid-1900's. Knowledge of flood hydrology has increased significantly since that time. When these dams were constructed, estimation of the spillway design flood was typically based upon a statistical analysis of hydrologic records for the basin or utilizing empirical formulas relating peak discharge to drainage basin area. Estimation of the inflow design flood
(Continued on Next Page)
29 RECLAMATION'S SAFETY OF DAMS (Continued) began to evolve in the 1930's with the development of the unit hydrograph theory, infiltration theory, and the probable maximum precipitation(PMP) theory.
Today, Reclamation utilizes the Hydrometeorologic Reports for estimates of the PMP for any given drainage basin. The Hydrometeorologic reports were developed as a joint effort of several Federal agencies including the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Hydrometeorologic Reports provide a standardized method for estimating the PMP for any given basin or region in the lower 48 United States. These estimates of the PMP are utilized along with the routing methods described in Reclamation's "Flood Hydrology Manual" to estimate the probable maximum flood (PMF)for any given basin. The PMF is defined as the maximum runoff condition (flood) resulting from the most severe combination of hydrologic and meteorologic conditions that are considered reasonably possible for the drainage basin under study.
Gibson Dam,located in north-central Montana,is an excellent example of the problems associated with under-estimating the design flood. Gibson Dam was constructed in the late 1920's. Prior to 1964, the peak measured inflow to Gibson Dam was approximately 5,000 ft3/s. In June 1964,a flood with a peak measured discharge in excess of 51,000 ft /s resulted in the dam being overtopped by approximately 3 feet. The flood that caused the dam to be overtopped had a peak discharge over ten times greater than any discharge that had been previously measured in that basin. Fortunately, Gibson Dam is a concrete-arch dam and did not fail as a result of being overtopped. Reclamation has subsequently modified Gibson Dam by installing splitter piers on the crest of the dam to improve the discharge characteristics of the crest of the dam and armoring the abutments to prevent erosion of the abutments during periods overtopping.
This is not to say that Reclamation structurally modifies all dams with identified hydrologic deficiencies. Reclamation has begun to utilize non-structural solutions to address this type of deficiencies. One primary focus has been the use of Early Warning Systems(EWS) to warn and evacuate populations in the downstream flood plain. As noted earlier, one of the basic principles of the SOD program is to reduce or eliminate the loss of life associated with dam failure. The use of an EWS to provide adequate warning of impending high flows or dam failure can provide an effective, low-cost alternative to expensive structural modifications.
This provides a brief overview of Reclamation's SOD program in the Great Plains Region. At this point,I would like to turn the program over to John Lawson,Project Manager of our North Platte River Projects Office. John will address the SOD program implications on Reclamation's North Platte River dams.
30 NORTH PLATTE PROJECTS SAFETY OF DAMS PROGRAM by John H.Lawson, Project Manager Bureau ,of Reclamation North Platte River Projects Office Mills, Wyoming
Thank you for your kind invitation to speak before your group regarding the Safety of Dams Program being undertaken by Reclamation on the North Platte River. To better understand how Reclamation has approached this study, a brief description of the facilities requiring evaluation would be helpful. The North Platte River gets its origin in Colorado proceeding northward into Wyoming and taking an abrupt turn to the east near Casper, Wyoming. The North Platte proceeds in a southeast direction where it crosses the Wyoming- Nebraska state line, near Scottsbluff, Nebraska. From that point it continues southeastward until it joins with the South Platte at the city of North Platte, Nebraska. There are seven storage facilities located on the North Platte River in Wyoming and all were built and are under the administration of the Bureau of Reclamation. The only other storage facility is located on the North Platte River downstream in Nebraska and is the non-federally owned Kingsley Dam. Because Gray Reef Dam is only a small regulation dam and reservoir storing less than 2,000 acre feet, it was found not to be a concern regarding a maximum probable flood, because any failure would contribute very little to any problem under a probable maximum flood.
Therefore,I will be addressing the six remaining dams. Starting upstream, the first dam is Seminoe Dam and can store just over a million acre-feet of water. It is a concrete structure and initial analysis indicates that it can stand overtopping with some structural modifications to the top 12 feet or so of the dam,as well as abutment protection. The next dam directly downstream is Kortes Dam which is also a concrete structure. It stores up to a maximum of about 6,000 acre-feet and initial analysis would indicate that it can be overtopped without failure.. Directly downstream of Kortes Dam is Pathfinder Reservoir and Pathfinder Dam.The dam is one of Reclamation's earliest constructed structures with construction starting in1904 and completed in 1909,and stores just over one million acre-feet. The dam is of granite masonry with a concrete rubble interior. Initial studies also indicate that it can be overtopped without some abutment protection without failure. What is of more interest though is an earthen dike. This has been found not to be able to withstand overtopping without failure and presents some other interesting problems, which I will address later. The next facility is Alcova Dam and Reservoir which stores approximately 185,000 acre feet of water. It is an earthen structure and initial studies would indicate that if overtopped would fail.
Moving downstream some 120 miles,is Glendo Dam and Reservoir which can store
(Continued on Next Page) 31 NORTH PLATIE PROJECTS SAFETY OF DAMS (Continued) approximately 800,000 acre feet of water before reaching surcharge. Like Alcova Dam, it too is an earthen structure and is prone to failure if overtopped. The last dam is Guernsey Dam and Reservoir which stores approximately 45,000 acre feet of water. Again,it is also prone to failure if overtopped as it too is an earthen structure.
Because of the number of facilities and the degree of being prone to failure and/releasing large the amount of stored water, the study was divided into two phases. Basically, earthen structures prone to failure from overtopping holding substantial amounts of water were put in the first phase. This immediately led us to Pathfinder Dike holding back a million acre feet and Glendo Dam holding back 800,000 acre feet not counting surcharge. In addition from a probable maximum flood (PMF)standpoint, Pathfinder Dike is overtopping by more than 8 feet at only 40% of the PMF,and Glendo Dam is overtopped by more than 18 it. at only 45% of the PMF.
From the standpoint of risk analysis, an additional population of over 17,000 persons above Kingsley Dam are at risk from adding dam failure to the flood PMF.To put this in economic terms,the incremental increase of over and above the natural event from a PMF from a failure of these dams has been estimated to be 2 billion dollars above Kingsey Dam.
Therefore, the Corrective Action Studies have centered around one major basic premise - pass the probable maximum flood without adding to the natural event through the failure of a major storage facility. By accomplishing this, the incremental population at risk over the natural flood event and the 2 billion incremental additional economic damages can be reduced to a great extent. It is also important to recognize that we need to avoid a failure of a major Reclamation facility in order that we do not contribute to the natural event such that it would cause the overtopping of Kingsley Dam. With that in mind,the remainder of my presentation will be directed to Pathfinder Dam and Dike and Glendo Dam of the Phase I Corrective Action Study.
Initial Studies to date indicate that the corrective action for Pathfinder Dam and Dike may be in the neighborhood of 30 million. I am told although, that this could possibly approach 40 million. Based on the current studies,Pathfinder Dam would have to be increased approximately 17 feet in height. This would be from its existing top elevation of 5858.1 to an elevation of 5875.
In large part, the corrective action for Pathfinder has been narrowed to two alternatives. The first would be to raise Pathfinder Dike by 10 feet, raise Pathfinder Dam by 17 feet and modify the existing spillway. The second alternative is largely the same as the first alternative, except rather than modify the existing spillway, would be to construct a new gated spillway in the right abutment. Earlier I mentioned that it was the earthen dike that was of concern and it had some interesting ramifications. What is of interest is, should the dike be overtopped and breached, the force of the water behind the dike would continue to cause erosion of the natural gravel foundation material to an extent that another cut leading back to the canyon below Pathfinder Dam would be created. This erosion could cut a channel to the (Continued on Next Page)
32 NORTH PLA.11E PROJECTS SAFETY OF DAMS (Continued)
approximate same depth as the canyon and for all practical purposes evacuate the entire reservoir similar to what would happen should you have a failure of Pathfinder Dam.
Next I will address the proposed corrective action for Glendo Dam.Studies to date would indicate that the corrective action may cost upwards to 55 million. As with Pathfinder, it has been narrowed to two alternatives. The first alternative is to provide a new reinforced concrete cement-lined spillway in the dike area or a new fuse plug spillway near the dikes. This alternative would also require adding a 5 ft. parapet wall on the dam as well as the dikes. The second alternative would be to replace the existing spillway by lowering the chest, widening and adding gates. These two would require adding a 5 ft. parapet to the dam and dikes.
It is at this point where the technical analysis begins to fade and you begin to see why project managers have very little sense and skin close to road pavement. The subject is, how do we recover the costs associated with undertaking these corrections or who pays? As with most things, what appears to be straight-forward legislation regarding recovery of reimbursable costs becomes more complicated than doing your own taxes. The legislation simply states 85 percent of the costs are non -reimbursable or, in other words, picked up by the nation's taxpayers. The remaining 15 percent will be reimbursable to be paid by the project beneficiaries. In the case of Pathfinder it would mean for a 30 million dollar fix, 25.5 million is paid by the nation's tax payers,and 4.5 is paid by the project beneficiary How do we determine who the project beneficiary is— look at the congressional authorization. Now when Congress authorized Pathfinder in 1903, they had one thing and only one thing in mind—irrigation. From a congressionally authorized approach, regardless who may now be getting secondary benefits such as recreation and fish and wildlife, the only project beneficiaries are those identified by the authorization. Therefore, in the case of Pathfinder, this is 100% reimbursable by the irrigators. It gets further complicated by the fact that the irrigators are made up of 13 separate repayment entities. Reclamation has already developed a method of allocating costs which has been and is currently used for other obligations regarding this project. If you would break this down on a per acre basis, the total capital cost ranges from $11.22 for Beerline to $23.1.1 for Rock Ranch. To demonstrate how this possibly could be retired,I have chosen a potential repayment ability of $3.50 per acre annually. This should be considered for demonstration purposes only. Using the repayment ability of $3.50 the obligation could be paid off ranging from 4 to 7 years.
Next I would like to address the Glendo Dam corrective action. Again,85 percent of the 55 million or $46,750,000 would be paid by the nation's tax payers. The remaining reimbursable costs of 15% or $8,250,000 will be paid by the project beneficiaries. Unlike Pathfinder, Glendo was authorized later under the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Flood Control of 1944). This was a multipurpose authorization which included irrigation,flood control, hydro power,recreation, and fish and wildlife. Therefore, the reimbursable costs as they are presently allocated would be as shown on the slide. Again, the matter is not simple, as the irrigation portion is made up of (Continued on Next Page)
33 NORTH PLA.11E PROJECTS SAFETY OF DAMS (Continued) many different entities as shown on the slide. The total capital cost per acre would range from $15.20 to a possible high of $226.95. I state possibly as high as S226.95, as this is for water that has not been permanently contracted for as of today, and it would largely depend on how many acres this water is spread over. For illustrative purposes we used only 2,500 acres. Again,using $3.50 as a potential repayment ability, retirement of the reimbursable costs could range from 5 to 65 years.
This takes us to, where do we go from here, remembering the newspaper headlines I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. I am showing a slide of Gibson Dam located in central Montana, which looks very similar to some of those facilities I just addressed for the North Platte River. In November of 1991,1 met with the water user groups that will be involved in the repayment of the reimbursable costs. As explained at that meeting, Reclamation is seeking a resolution expressing a willingness to negotiate a repayment contract from each beneficiary that we require a repayment contract with. By the way, this is a photo of Gibson Dam in 1964 when it was overtopped by a flood that nobody envisioned, and up to that time was thought such an event would really never happen. The time frame for this resolution is sometime between now and this coming fall. This time frame was established by the fact that by February of 1992, the final selection of the corrective action for Phase I is to be complete. Reclamation will then be identifying environmental issues that will have to be addressed and a modification report will be completed and provided to the Office of Management and Budget by March 1993 for submittal to Congress. The process is such that no construction can proceed without Congress appropriating funds to undertake the correction action.
34 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus .RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (1)
by Gary L. Lewis Senior Project Manager HDR Engineering, Inc. Denver, Colorado
ABSTRACT. A federal district court jury in Cheyenne, Wyoming,ruled that an Act-of-God defense could not be used when a railroad culvert backed water onto residential properties during a catastrophic "10,000-year" rainstorm. The culvert capacity not only met but exceeded industry design standards, yet the jury concluded that the railroad was negligent for not installing a structure large enough to accommodate the "monster" storm.
The five-foot diameter culvert, installed to replace a larger, deteriorating trestle, was sized by frequency- based methods to discharge the 50-year peak flow rate, with a nominal surcharge anticipated during the 100-year event. It was agreed by both sides that the selected structure would have safely passed more than a 500 -year event, but was not able to discharge all the flows from the freak storm. Backwater ponded 9 feet s over the top of the culvert,flooding more than 20 basements in one subdivision. The defendant was held liable for the damages and cited as negligent for not anticipating the storm and for failing to consider the rishs to the homeowners. Under court order, a larger structure was installed.
This paper is a review of several matters debated during the trial and in subsequent analyses, presented as a case study from the author's perspective. The author participated as an expert witness who performed the analysis for the defense, but was called to the stand as a witness for the plaintiff. The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Implications for improvements in drainage design and expert testimony are discussed. INTRODUCTION Culverts have traditionally been designed by frequency-based (FB) methods whereby a design recurrence interval is preselected and the opening is sized to safely accommodate the worst expected storm for that frequency. Federal agency policies suggest that culverts and other hydraulic structures be designed using risk-based (RB) methods. In RB design the recommended size is that with the least total expected costs (LTEC), wherein risk costs are included along with traditional costs of the installation and maintenance of a structure. The recurrence interval of the largest storm that the culvert will safely pass without damage is an outcome rather than a prescription as in FB methods. It is often argued that risk -based methods incorporate greater (Continued on Next Page) 35 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued)
consideration of risk because they force the designer to evaluate a wider range of floods and alternatives.
1Presented at the March 17-19,1987, ASCE Water Resources Planning and Management Division Specialty Conference, Kansas City, Missouri.
Testimony by the design engineer and technical experts for both sides in this case addressed a range of issues of interest to civil engineers. These included culvert design standards and criteria, prudence in design, the degree of responsibility that can be attributed to the engineer when catastrophes occur, and a number of technical hydraulic and hydrologic issues. Portions of the case addressed concerns over use of frequency -based design techniques versus emerging risk -based methods. Issues which surfaced during the Cheyenne trial were:
1. When a structure is sized by FB methods and meets all standards of practice, are the engineer and/or owner liable when storm events in excess of the design frequency cause damages? Are they automatically negligent if the storm was not anticipated?
2. When does this liability shift to providence (at what point does the damage become an Act of God)? What range of storms should be anticipated?
3. When a structure is sized by RB methods,is less liability and/or greater prudence on the part of the designer implied?
4. Current RB methods produce small expected risk costs for drainage structures, often resulting in smaller sizes than those prescribed by FB methods. Should RB designs be constrained to select at least the contemporaneous FB size?
5. If a proposed RB design minimizes expected costs but increases calculated risks of damage for moderate to extreme events,should a larger structure be selected?
6. RB methods presumably include estimates of potential losses from catastrophic storms. What standards are available or needed for performing these calculations? How do we select the most severe storm to be evaluated?
7. Could the storm in this case really have been anticipated, and would RB methods have changed the design?
8. With the implementation ofthe National Flood Insurance Program,should engineers adopt a uniform 100 -year minimum design criterion for hydraulic
(Continued on Next Page)
36 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued)
structures on major drains in urban communities? Is an even larger event suggested by court decisions?
9. What standards should be used for replacement of deteriorating drainage structures? What prescriptive rights should be assumed upstream and downstream?
10. If an installed structure exceeds all known standards of practice, but a jury or judge orders a replacement, what standards should be used by the engineer who must redesign it?
Other issues that should be addressed by Civil Engineers include:
1. Is it appropriate for professional engineers to testify that another engineer is "negligent" without previously (or at least concurrently) filing a formal negligence complaint with the state registration board or appropriate ethics committee of the society? Should courts allow any use of this term, because of its legal meaning, except by judges or jurors? If an engineer is deemed "negligent" by a court, should the profession address the presumed misconduct?
2. How can our profession control the problems of contradictory testimony by opposing experts,courtroom debates over adequacy of our design standards,contradictory arguments about prudence and reasonableness in applying engineering principles, presentations of so-called "crafted testimony', and problems caused by irrelevant, incomplete, or misunderstood technical testimony?
THE LAWSUIT Just before the storm, the trestle had been replaced by a single 60-inch corrugated metal pipe culvert. The trestle, constructed in the late 1800's to allow passage of another railroad's track beneath the main line, was in need of replacement,and a mainline derailment had recently occurred. The 125 acre-foot detention cell just upstream of the trestle had been constructed a few years earlier by the Wyoming Highway Department(WHD) to protect Interstate 80 downstream from peak runoff resulting from development in Basin A. At the time the storm occurred,some construction debris remained on site, and a row of 4"x4" temporary support struts remained inside the pipe.
Over twenty of the homeowners in the Sun Valley subdivision filed a class action suit in the Cheyenne Federal District Court to recover damages from basement flooding due to water that backed up behind the railroad embankment. The homeowners filed (Continued on Next Page)
37 Y VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus SK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued) as legal, for about $ 1 million, claiming $577,000 in flood damages and the remainder in the appraisal, and engineering and court costs. Most of the damages listed costs. One appraisal reports were for replacement of basement contents and cleanup claimed a claim included damages for lost employment. Another property owner a high school $10,000 loss for four photo albums. Another claimed a $1,000 loss for of Playboy diploma. One distraught owner filed for $540 for an 18-year collection was magazines. The railroad's pre-trial settlement offer of $225,000 for damages of damages was refused. After debating separate damage appraisals, a stipulation made mid-course in the trial, setting the amount at $337,500. THE VERDICT A jury of six, five The trial ended on August 1,1986, exactly one year after the storm. damages. of whom reside in Cheyenne,found the railroad liable for the stipulated God and that the They concluded that the damages were not exclusively an Act of of the defendant was negligent in either its design, construction, or maintenance required to facility so as to "proximately cause" the damages. The jury was not of defendant's articulate in which area the negligence occurred. Testimony was critical actions in all three areas. or negligent The defendant was found to have created either an intentional, reckless that the invasion of the plaintiffs property interests. It was further concluded replacement was an homeowners had developed a prescriptive easement and that the to be a unreasonable use of the former trestle site. The culvert was determined a design for its continuing nuisance,and the judge ordered that the railroad present replacement within 30 days. THE STORM cell developed over On the afternoon of August 1, 1985,a large,stationary storm about midnight. Cheyenne. Intense rain and hail occurred for several hours, ending some up to 2-inches in Portions of the community were covered with four feet of hail, The Weather diameter. Three tornadoes were reported as part of the same system. cloud ranged in heights Services (Daseler 1985) estimated that the 12-mile diameter up to 65,000 feet. center. The airport A depth of 7.75 inches of precipitation was gauged at the storm p.m. The average weather station recorded 6.06 inches between 6:20 and 9:45 was 4.77 inches, based precipitation depth on the watershed above the culvert location rainfall intensity on interpretation of a U.S. Weather Bureau isohyetal map. The Weather Service peaked at 3.51 inches per hour around 8:30 p. m.The National "clearly (Daseler 1985)described the storm and flash flood as "monstrous," abnormal," and "very rarely occurring over populated areas." For comparison, The 6.06 inch depth is a record 3.5-hour amount for the community. (Continued on Next Page)
38 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued)
the 100-year and 500-year National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 2 (NOAA 1984) rain depths for the same duration are estimated as 2.7 inches and 3.1 inches, respectively. The 3-hour probable maximum precipitation is 13.7 inches, and the average annual point rainfall at Cheyenne is about 12 inches. Simple linear extrapolation of depth-duration-frequency curves (not considered to be accurate) places the 1985 storm outside the 10,000-year limit of the abscissa.
Acceptable levels of flood risks should also have been described to the jury to establish context. Even if the current Sun Valley homeowner's risk of flooding during a 50-year period is 1 in 10,this is quite small compared to accepted risks of millions of people living in residential developments across the country. The current annual damage probability for homeowners behind the 60-inch culvert is 0.002, assuming that plaintiffs 500-year recurrence interval estimate for the 3.9-inch rain is correct. A typical property having its basement window at the 100-year flood plain fringe along a stream has an annual risk of only 0.01, which is five times greater than the risk to Sun Valley residences behind the railroad's 60-inch culvert. If extended over 50 years by Eq. 1, the same basement has only a 39.5 percent probability of flooding at least once. This is still almost four times greater than the approximate 50 -year risk of 10 percent to which the homeowners would be exposed with the 60-inch culvert.
REPLACEMENT ISSUES The court ordered that the 60-inch culvert be replaced with a "necessary and adequate" structure. These abstract terms were incorporated in the court order, but it was not accompanied by engineering guidance or criteria. Within the 30-day period,a proposed replacement size was offered by the railroad, but rejected by the plaintiff. The proposal included a second 60-inch pipe, placed perpendicular to the embankment. No calculations were incorporated because it was felt that twice the capacity of what was already adequate by all available engineering standards would certainly be "adequate." This action initiated debate over selection of criteria for designing the replacement culvert,since the design had to be documented and certified by an engineer. Of interest, plaintiffdid not propose an appropriate frequency level, nor did they propose the use of an RB method for sizing the replacement, even though their testimony was that the railroad should have given consideration to risk analysis in the original design. As shown herein,an RB analysis would allow installation of a smaller culvert.
Three options were discussed for sizing the replacement:(1) a frequency-based design storm,(2) re-establishing the historical conveyance for a selected (design)storm, and (3) sizing the replacement to eliminate damages from a repeat of the freak 1985 storm. The opposing engineers (the author was not involved at this point) could not agree on an appropriate frequency for replacement, because the existing culvert would safely discharge all storms that have reasonably determinable frequencies (i.e., up to 500 years). A structure that would provide equal conveyance was discussed, but the (Continued on Next Page)
39 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued) engineers could not agree on how much of the original opening was a hydraulic structure, and which design storm should be used to establish "equivalence." Preventing all damages from a repeat of the 1985 storm was eventually adopted as the basis for design of the replacement.
Once a consensus was reached to use the 1985 storm,a further debate broke out regarding which backwater elevation should be adopted for the new design. The opposing engineers reached initial consensus to allow the water to rise to 5976 feet (see Fig. 2), giving a 1-foot freeboard level below the lowest zero -damage elevation. Then,in an apparent change of position, the plaintiffs representatives argued that their client had a prescriptive easement to the original trestle, and that water levels should not be allowed to rise any higher than with the original trestle, even though damages would not be incipient.
Both sides eventually agreed that a maximum allowable water level during a repeat of the 1985 storm should be 5976, one foot below the zero -damage elevation. The engineers were then unable to agree on the combination of new culvert sizes that would result in this maximum allowable elevation. Caused by using different models of the watershed,the disagreement eventually narrowed to about one foot of pipe diameter. Two additional 72-inch sizes were suggested by the railroad's detailed SWMM model. The judge finally resolved the matter by ordering installation of plaintiffs HEC-1 based plan which called for new 72 and 84 inch culverts. The site now has a set of 60-, 72-, and 84-inch pipes. DRAINAGE DESIGN IMPLICATIONS Practicing engineers currently using FB methods should view the described criticisms directed at the railroad, and the compound jury verdict of "liable, negligent, and creating a nuisance" as potentially addressable to their designs when nearby property experiences flood damages from a catastrophic flood. The principle that prudent application of long-established drainage engineering standards,such as the 100-year criterion or use of the Rational method for 166-acre watersheds,should protect the culvert designer was challenged by the outcome. Further, evidence was admitted implying that things not done(no trash rack, no analysis of piping, no outlet protection, not visiting site, etc .) were somehow linked to negligence and/or related to the damages. This suggests that design files must also defend what wasn't done.
The outcome of this trial adds to the growing list of reasons why practicing engineers need to resolve issues involving drainage design, particularly FB versus RB methods. It also reinforces the need for reaching consensus regarding resolution of disputes over technical matters. Several alternative dispute resolution(ADR) methods have been proposed (Muller 1990). Expert engineers given the same information reached completely different conclusions regarding the appropriateness of standards used by the railroad in designing the culvert, the appropriateness of design methods used, the estimation of the frequency of storms using limited data, the appropriate means of (Continued on Next Page)
40 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued) considering risk in design, and whether or not full consideration of risk by using RB design methods would have lessened the damages or should be used in replacing the structure.
This case suggests that engineers using FB methods cannot rely on standards of practice to protect them from negligence claims by other engineers when catastrophic events produce damages. A very practical question is whether RB methods offer greater security, or would produce design decisions that would have prevented damages such as those occurring in this case. Economic risk analysis techniques would not have enlarged or improved the original design, and were of no value in subsequent attempts to replace the culvert or the original trestle with an engineered structure.
The case also focuses on how potential catastrophes should be addressed in hydraulic design. A premise of RB methods is that an annual deposit to a sinking fund of an amount equal to the expected risk cost will pay for all damages,including• catastrophic damages,over a sufficiently long time period. Litigation costs are not normally included, but the implied liability for all damaging floods,including Acts of God,suggests that these costs should be incorporated because simple settlements for assessed damages are not likely to occur.
Common procedures for determining risk costs either ignore the damages for floods greater than the maximum design flood considered (this is seldom greater than the 100-year event in drainage design), or assume that all greater floods produce the same damages as the maximum value. If the maximum event studied is in the 50-500-year range,common analysis procedures give similar expected risk costs, and wouldn't likely change the adopted size. The point of this paper is that the design, however, would not likely change even if an estimate of catastrophic damages is attempted.
Plaintiffs witnesses made a large number of technical assertions, and the jury concluded that something was terribly wrong based on the assertions. This paper shows that in-depth engineering evaluations of the technical relevance of each assertion does not support the repeated claims of wrongdoing. The design of this culvert was prudently prepared by a professional engineer, using accepted and widely adopted methods. Even though the plaintiff would not agree that the storm was an Act of God,it was described from the witness stand as a "Godsend" to the litigation industry because of all of the inquiries being received from other flooded landowners in town.
With regard to risk issues,state-of-the-art risk assessment technologies would have upheld the defendant, yet the plaintiffs claim of a 20-fold increase in risk, and sharp criticism of the railroad's failure to apply risk-based methods, were probably very instrumental in leading the jury to its negligence verdict. It is questionable whether frequency versus risk-based methods received a fair or final evaluation by this jury.
(Continued on Next Page)
41 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued) EXPERT TESTIMONY ISSUES A continuing area for consideration by ASCE is the subject of expert testimony. The adversarial setting of a lawsuit such as this can promote advocacy and a zeal for winning instead of detached objectivity. Registration codes in most states require that engineers serve as neutral arbiters. Engineers must strive to help the courts understand technical matters and standards,and leave it to the courts to decide issues of liability, prudence, negligence, and guilt. ASCE members subscribe to code requirements that they be "impartial in serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients," that they "include all relevant and pertinent information in ... testimony" and that they "issue public statement.
Table 1 — Applicable Culvert Design Criteria Agency Frequency-Based (1) Design Storm Criteria (2)
Railroad 50 yr, then evaluate effects of 100-yr storm
American Railway Engineer's Assn 25 to 50 yr
City of Cheyenne 100 yr on major drainage systems
Wyoming Highway Department 100 yr, or flood of record if 100 yr
Federal Highway Administration 50-yr minimum,interstate highways
Laramie County Use city criteria in urban areas
Risk-Based Design Use least total expected cost (approximately five-year frequency)
(Continued on Next Page) 42 JURY VERDICT:FREQUENCY versus RISK-BASED CULVERT DESIGN (Continued) Table 2 — Economic Losses at Various Flood Elevations for 60-inch Culvert
Frequency Flood Street & Road Residential Detention Cell Total (yr) Elevation Probability Damages Damages Damages Damages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0
5 0.20 $0 $0 $0 $0
10 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $0
- 5966.0 - $0 $0 $0 $0
25 5971.3 0.04 $0 $0 $114 $114
50 5972.8 0.02 $0 $0 $298 $298
100 5973.8 0.01 $0 $0 $371 $371
- 5975.0 - $0 $0 $958 $958
500 5975.1 0.002 $494 $0 • $1,285 $1,779
- 5977.0 - $14,826 $0 $7502 $22,328
- 5980.0 - $24,710 $576,770 $10,120 $611,600
Table 3 — Culvert Size Qptimization by Economic Risk Analysis
Culvert Diameter Annual Capital Annual Risk Total Expected (in.) Cost($) Cost($) Cost($) (1) (2) (3) (4)
96 10,000 <630 10,000
84 8,900 <630 8,900
72 7,800 <630 7,800
60 2,600 630 3,230
48 2,200 >630 3,000
43 WATER POLICY AND THE WEST by Thomas F. Donnelly Executive Vice President National Water Resources Association Arlington, Virginia
The future focus and direction of this Nation's water policies will be decided early in this decade with or without your input.
Unfortunately, today we take for granted the policies, principles, and body of laws that were developed and fought so hard for, over the past 80 or more years. These principles are the cornerstone of the development of more than half of this Nation and contribute greatly to America's preeminence in the World.
Our challenge in this decade is not going to be the development of new projects. The number of new large projects that will be funded by Congress into the next Century will be few,if any. The challenge will be to preserve the rights of the citizens of all states to manage, allocate, and develop their water resources within the framework of applicable interstate compacts and the water laws of the respective states. This challenge will be the greatest that the water supply industry has every faced. _
Many Congressional pundits point to the upcoming reauthorization of the Clean Water Act as the ultimate battleground over the focus and direction of federal water policy. I can't disagree, but,I would ask you to look at the entire playing field for a moment.
For the past three years we have been involved in a battle to preserve Reclamation Program for western irrigators.
Several versions of bills which would unfairly penalized farm families westwide have been the subject of Congressional hearings and debate. Why have we been involved in a ten year battle to preserve the important benefits of the reclamation program for family farmers in the West?
Why have environmental groups and their liberal supporters in Congress spent so much time and money attempting to discredit this, by federal standards,small program?
At a September 12 Senate hearing on reclamation reform,Senator Bill Bradley put this whole struggle in focus. He announced that passage of S. 484, the CVP fish and wildlife bill would preclude any necessity for reclamation legislation. From his perspective, he's right.
It is not a question of addressing minor inequities in agricultural policy. It is not a
(Continued on Next Page)
44 WATER POLICY AND THE WEST (Continued) matter of eliminating abuses of the Reclamation program. Clearly, the issue is— who will control the water,fo er what purposes and by what means.
Senate bill 484 prohibits the Central Valley Project from selling water for any use other than fish and wildlife purposes, with the following exceptions: up to 100,000 acre-feet of municipal water will be sold to the highest bidder to provide seed money for a fish and wildlife restoration fund established by the bill; in addition,a 25 percent surcharge of the proceeds of the sale or of the water Do be transferred is dedicated to fish and wildlife needs. The contracting prohibition is to remain in place until three conditions are met:
First, under the bill fish, wildlife and related habitat are to be provided "equitable treatment" with other CVP purposes. Although "equitable treatment" is not defined, the bill mandates a program to mitigate fully for damage caused by CVP operations to anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento,San Joaquin and Trinity rivers and their tributaries. Furthermore, the CVP is to be operated to "protect, restore and enhance" affected fish, wildlife and related habitat, but no performance standards or operating criteria are provided.
You don't have to go beyond the first condition to see that the conditions can never be met.
Second, the contract prohibitions will continue until the current Bay/Delta process is completed by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If EPA does not approve the new standards set for the Delta, CVP water users cannot contract for water. CVP water users are,in essence, held hostage by a process over which they have no control.
Third, before the contract prohibitions are lifted, at least 1 20 days must have passed after a report on the CVP's obligations and their impacts under the approved Bay-Delta plan is provided to relevant House and Senate committees. During this period water supply contracts can only be For one year. If the conditions are somehow met 20 years contracts can be made available, however,10 percent of water for ten years must be dedicated to fish and wildlife and an additional 1 percent per year after ten years for the water tax.
Citizen suits that could tie up the CVP in the courts for years are authorized to enforce the provisions of the act. This act spells economic disaster for one of the most productive agricultural areas of this nation.
Well,so what? Its California's problem not yours.
Wake up folks!
Take out all references to the CVP and substitute in lieu thereof Pick-Sloan project facilities and its your problem. Substitute Columbia Basin Project or Colorado River
(Continued on Next Page)
45 WATER POLICY AND THE WEST (Continued) Storage Project or any other federal project or program and you and your neighbors are out of business.
Again, who will control the water,for what purposes and by what means?
Wilderness legislation poses similar problems. NWRA is not opposed to the designation of additional wilderness areas in the West.
We support the sound management and use of public lands and support each State's right to determine how the public lands within its boundaries are used to achieve a proper balance of environmental values, recreational opportunities and economic benefit.
We believe, however,that the granting of federal reserved water rights to wilderness areas will have a major adverse impact on existing water rights for wilderness areas in prior appropriation states. This is especially true with BLM lands because they are generally located at lower elevations far down in river drainage basins.
If such wilderness federal reserved water rights claim all of the remaining unappropriated water in all of the stream segments within a wilderness,as alleged by the Sierra Club and other environmental preservationist organizations, then any further water development which would diminish the flow of water in any stream segment with the wilderness would be prohibited. Our courts will be constrained to uphold that prohibition.
Once again, who will control the water,for what purposes and by what means?
Quite possibly, the most important federal water law is scheduled for reauthorization this Congress. It promises to be a bitter battle over the focus and direction of federal water policy.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972(Clean Water Act) has been an incredibly successful environmental statute. Considering the state of our Nation's waters in 1972, the "fishable,swimmable" goals of the act were immensely ambitious.
We have, however, made enormous progress eliminating point discharge pollution and thereby improving the quality of the surface waters of this country.
Problems still remain.
Non point source pollution is a real and serious problem that agriculture in particular must address. However,the most serious problem that the Congress and the Administration must address is that of process. As an example, whether or not the Two Forks Project is the most appropriate solution to Denver's long-term water supply problems, you must agree that a process that takes ten years and costs over $40 million to arrive at no solution,is fundamentally flawed.
(Continued on Next Page)
46 WATER POLICY AND THE WEST (Continued) The Senate intends to use Senate bill 1081 as the vehicle for reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. This legislation is most troubling.
S. 1081 would supplant the clean water focus of existing federal law and substitute a regulatory "ecological integrity" program. Natural conditions of water bodies would become paramount. A direct assault on State water laws and water rights would occur because withdrawal of water from streams and lakes is necessary for the exercise of water rights and diversions of water from streams and lakes always changes the natural conditions of water bodies.
Under S. 1081, the Clean Water Act would become a national instream flow law. Such a regulatory program was foreshadowed in an EPA document entitled "Arid Area and Water Efficiency Issues".in which one of the options identified was legislation which would allow EPA to set and require the States to adopt and implement instream flow standards.
S. 1081 would add to the Clean Water Act new interstate water management programs which could override State water law, water rights, and interstate water entitlements. This legislation was introduced earlier this year, the Senate Environment and Public Works held a rapid and one-sided hearing on the bill and decided that after markup their work on the Clean Water Act was completed.
Once we and other members of Congress had an opportunity adequately review the legislation, we were so troubled that it prompted the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources,Senator Malcolm Wallop,to write to the Chairman of the Western Governors Association voicing his strong concerns and asking for their review.
You would assume that such legislation would be the product of the liberal eastern establishment, another attack on western water policy. Most troubling is the fact that S. 1.081's author is Montana's senior senator, Max Baucus.
Again, who will control the water, for what purposes and by what means?
I hope by now your asking yourselves, what can we do? It's simple — get involved! Look beyond your own parochial concerns, become engaged in the concerns of your neighbors.
Recognize that the environmental community has legitimate concerns that must be addressed. The days of business as usual are over.
Understand that you must be part of the solution to today's problems or you stand to lose everything that you and those before you worked so hard for.
We haven't lost many battles in the past. However,those battles pale in comparison to the one we are currently involved in, battle over the focus and direction of water policy in America.
47 UPDATE OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES IN THE FOUR STATES AREA
by Neil Stessman, Acting Regional Director Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region Billings, Montana
LEADERSHIP CHANGES Most of you know Regional Director Roger Patterson was reassigned in August to Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region, headquartered in Sacramento, California. I was asked to serve as Acting Regional Director until a new RD is named. The selection process is still underway.
We have had a series of people in the Regional Office over the past several months as acting assistant regional director. Currently, Loretta Howard, our Regional Financial Manager,is working in that capacity. WYOMING 1. Evaluation of Existing Projects
Roger Patterson described this process in his remarks last year. We are examining the operations of existing projects on the Platte River to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. If the study reveals that operations are adversely affecting listed species or their habitats,formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated.
A Hydrology Study Team has been working on developing a North Platte River Hydrologic Model to be used in assessing the use of the river by T&E species. The team is comprised of individuals from a variety of irrigation and conservation and environmental interests as well as state and federal agencies. A draft North Platte River water utilization model should be available for review early this year.
2. North Platte River Safety of Dams Corrective Action Study
This is one of our major activities underway in Wyoming,but you have already heard a great deal about the details from John Lawson and Bob Pike,so I'll not discuss it further.
3. Platte River Management Joint Study
The Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are leading this study to (Continued on Next Page)
48 UPDATE OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES • (Continued) develop a habitat management plan for the Platte River in cooperation with the states of Wyoming,Colorado and Nebraska, as well as environmental interests and water users. Implementation of a management plan will provide a mechanism for future water resource development to proceed within a framework that is consistent with the Endangered Species Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service provided a study manager to oversee and coordinate the effort to assure completion in 1993. Reclamation has a very active role and is supplying a significant amount of expertise and staff work mostly through our office in Mills, Wyoming. Numerous water users entities and state agencies from Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska are also participating very extensively in this study.
4. Buffalo Bill Dam Modification
Work is continuing toward 1993 completion of the modification project. Most recent contract award was in November. Contract for just over $1 million was awarded to a Cody firm to build the visitor center at the dam. When opened in the spring of 1993, the center will be operated by a non-profit organization which spearheaded the drive to raise the local share of the cost of building and furnishing the facility.
A $1.6 million contract was awarded in September for completing the relocated facilities of the Buffalo Bill State Park which were displaced by raising the reservoir level. And a $3.1 million contract was awarded in September to a Pennsylvania firm to install the turbine, governor and 4.5 megawatt generator in the Spirit Mountain Energy Dissipation Structure.
Bids were opened last month for a contract to do tree and fence clearing around the reservoir. The apparent low bidder at $363,000 is a firm from North Carolina. There remains only one contract under the modification project to plant trees and vegetation around the state park.
4. Wind River Water Supply Study
During 1991 the Region initiated the Wind River Water Management Study in cooperation with the State of Wyoming,the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes and the Midvale Irrigation District. The Fiscal Year 92 budget includes $125,000 for the study which will produce a proposed basinwide comprehensive water resource plan to minimize the impact of the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes' dedication of some of their senior rights for instream flow to protect fisheries.
Work this year will include further data collection to identify potential water conservation measures,developing a hydrologic computer model, developing a plan of study to investigate sediment problems, and cooperating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conducting Wind River fishery studies.
(Continued on Next Page)
49 UPDATE OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES (Continued) NEBRASKA 1. North Loup Division Construction
Fiscal Year 1992 budget includes $21.3 million for continued work on the project which, when fully completed, will provide irrigation water to 53,000 acres of farmland in five central Nebraska counties. Portions of the project are already in operation. A contract for $22.4 million was awarded in June for completion of the Fullerton Canal. Davis Creek Dam was completed in December 1990 and filling of the reservoir was commenced. After road construction adjacent to the reservoir is completed,filling will continue in late 1992 and 1993.
The Calamus Fish Hatchery at Virginia Smith Dam,also a North Loup feature, was dedicated in September. Built with State and Federal funds, it is operated by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
2. Harlan County Reservoir
There was considerable conflict this summer over operation of this Army Corps of Engineers reservoir in south central Nebraska which provides water to Reclamation irrigation districts in both Nebraska and Kansas. There was high profile involvement of the governors and members of both state's congressional delegations.
Drought and steadily declining inflows reduced the reservoir level to the point where there was conflict between irrigators and recreationists over use of the water. Just last month the Corps and Reclamation reached agreement on an operating plan for 1992. A long-term operating plan will require further study and public involvement.
Reclamation has supplied $3.5 million in funding to the Corps of Enginers for extending the riprap on the upstream face of the dam to allow more and better utilization of storage. In addition, we will be awarding a contract for lining the Courtland Canal.
3. O'Neill Unit Recharge Alternative
A special report on the O'Neill Unit is now being printed and will soon be distributed to the public. The study addresses technical aspects of recharging groundwater supplies used to irrigate cropland in two areas of the project.
4. Groundwater Recharge Demonstrations
The York Project, one of the first under the High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration Program to go into operation, was dedicated May 3. This project is testing three methods of recharge; filtration into the aquifer through spreading basins, seepage from a storage reservoir, and direct injection. (Continued on Next Page)
50 UPDATE OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES (Continued) Construction on a second Nebraska project got underway in 1991 near Wood River. It will study the effectiveness of accomplishing recharge with water pumped from the Platte River into recharge basins. COLORADO 1. Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel
Work is nearing completion on the water treatment plant which will clean effluent from tunnel discharge before it flows into the Arkansas River. The $5 million facility, now undergoing testing, will begin operating this year.
2. Groundwater Recharge
There is one project in Colorado,located in Denver. Construction is nearly completed, and recharge activities are expected to get underway this spring. The project will study the feasibility of injecting treated municipal water into a deep bedrock aquifer to decrease the rate of decline in the aquifer water levels.
3. Upper Arkansas River Basin Water Quality Study
$275,000 is budgeted in Fiscal Year 1992 for continuing this study which is a ,cooperative effort among Reclamation,EPA, the Colorado Department of Health and Colorado Department of Natural Resources. The study is examining ways of restoring water quality in the Upper Arkansas Basin..Problems are mostly related to early mining activities. Future water quality issues have the potential to affect project operations.
4. Operational changes to benefit fisheries, recreation
a. Our Eastern Colorado Projects Office has provided water from Ruedi Reservoir, a feature of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, to help improve habitat conditions for the endangered squawfish in a stretch of the Colorado River near Grand Junction. In 1991 about 20,000 acre-feet of water was released.
The releases raised the concern of communities in the Roaring Fork Valley who fear the reservoir drawdown will diminish recreation opportunities and affect their economic well being. However,the releases were timed so that the reservoir was maintained at levels which preserved recreation opportunities.
b. During the last two years, the Project Office has released water into the Arkansas River from Twin Lakes to augment flows for white water rafting. Believing this negatively affects brown trout, Colorado Trout Unlimited filed (Continued on Next Page)
51 UPDATE OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES (Continued) suit in federal court and asked for a temporary restraining order to halt the flow augmentation. The restraining order was granted, but the suit was later dismissed on a technicality and Trout Unlimited's motion to amend their complaint and refile was denied. KANSAS 1. Cedar Bluff Reformulation
A measure which would reformulate the Cedar Bluff Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program was again included in an omnibus water bill which has once again been stalled by controversy over RRA acreage limitations and the so-called double subsidy issue. The measure would reformulate the project to supply water for municipal use with the remainder to be made available for fish, wildlife and recreation. A suitable supply for irrigation has not been available since 1978.
2. Arkansas River Water Management Study
The Fiscal Year 1992 budget includes $133,000 to continue the study_to evaluate the potential for Arkansas River Water to contaminate the high quality aquifer located between Hutchinson and Wichita, Kansas. The study is scheduled for completion in 1993.
3. Groundwater Recharge
One of the two projects in Kansas was withdrawn by the sponsor last fall. While some feasibility study work is underway,actual construction of the other, a project at the city of Hays, must await passage of legislation to increase the recharge demonstration program's appropriation ceiling.
Let me close by saying how very much we in Reclamation enjoy the privilege of working with water users in the Four States area and with the great and important water resources of these states. We value the opportunity which we have to be of service.
52 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- AN ONGOING STUDY
by Gary Hoffner Agriculture Resources Specialist Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (District) is a quasi-municipal corporation created in 1937 by the Colorado State legislature. The District sponsored construction of the Colorado- Big Thompson(C -BT)Project by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The C-BT Project supplements the water supply for northeastern Colorado by importing an average of 230,000 acre-feet of water annually from the upper Colorado River Basin. The District service area extends approximately 170 miles along the South Platte River Basin and its tributaries from the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains to the Colorado-Nebraska state line. There are approximately 640,000 acres of irrigated land in the District boundaries.
As part of the District's commitment to water conservation, an Irrigation Management Service(IMS) was implemented in 1981. The program is structured to provide area farmers with additional sources of factual information which management decisions can be based. The IMS program continues to grow in scope and recognition. The program currently has four area of emphasis. These areas are the weather station network,field by field irrigation scheduling, nonpoint source pollution education, and water quality standards and monitoring.
The District has installed automated weather stations throughout its service area. Station sites are located in fields of irrigated alfalfa hay and are carefully selected to insure representative readings. The stations operate year around and are located near Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Greeley, Wiggins, Brush,Sterling, Crook,and Ovid. Stations are spaced approximately 25 to 30 miles apart to provide the best practical coverage of the District's service area. Each sOtion uses a Sutron data collection platform to measure air temperature, relative humidity,solar radiation, wind speed and direction, and precipitation. The climatic data collected at each station is transmitted hourly via the GOES satellite. Data is received and processed automatically on a VAX computer at the District's headquarters in Loveland.
The irrigation scheduling service provided by District personnel, demonstrates irrigation scheduling techniques in approximately 90 fields for 35 to 40 different farmers each year. Farmer participation in the IMS program is normally limited to 3 to 4 fields a year for a period of 3 to 4 years. District personnel demonstrate a variety of field instruments and methods that can be utilized in scheduling irrigations. This provides the farmer with an excellent chance to evaluate improved practices applicable to his operation without risk. At the conclusion of his participation in the program, the farmer must decide if the benefits realized from improved irrigation
(Continued on Next Page)
53 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- (Continued) scheduling justify their continuation at his own cost and initiative, either by himself or by a hired crop consulting firm.
Beginning in 1989 the District initiated an irrigation and fertilization management education program. The education program promotes voluntary adoption of best management practices by area farmers to control nonpoint pollution from irrigated agriculture. The program is a cooperative effort with the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health. The District's field demonstrations evaluate and compare the farmer's existing practices with the prescribes best management practices. The purpose of the comparison is to demonstrate how the amount of nitrogen fertilizer entering area water supplies can be reduced through improved irrigation and fertilizer management practices.
The importance of water quality standards for agricultural supplies will increase as concern for improving ground and surface water quality continues to grow. The District shares the major concerns for both the quality of water applied to agricultural crops and quality of tailwater runoff deep percolation leaving irrigated fields. Additionally,increasing use of water exchanges will mandate increased monitoring and regulation of water sources used for irrigation. The emphasis of this area by IMS will continue to be a major focal point of activity in the future.
As you can see there is a great variety of activity in the Irrigation Management Service. We will continue to be a contributor in the practice of water management and conservation in the South Platte River Basin area.
54 GREAT PLAINS REGION WATER CONSERVATION ADVISORY CENTER
by Jack Byers Regional Supervisor of Water, Land and Power Bureau of Reclamation Billings, Montana Introduction Following a year of research and planning, the GP Regional Water Conservation Advisory Center has recently been staffed and is operational.
I'm here to give you some of the background that led to the Center's development, to explain the Center's structure and function, and to share examples of how some needs are already being met. Background (The Why) Mission of Bureau of Reclamation.
Strategic Plan.
To serve the Mission,The Strategic Plan lays out goals and strategies that give direction to Reclamation programs in the 1990's. Under "Managing and Developing Resources" the Strategic Plan calls for the: "Establishment of Water Conservation and Advisory Centers that will coordinate water conservation programs, provide information on water supplies and conservation opportunities, provide technical assistance and technology transfer, and promote public education programs." This strategy is included in the Strategic Plan under the Water Conservation Guiding Principle: "Water conservation is a key element in improving the use and management of the Nation's water resources to more effectively meet present and future needs."
The overall issue: "Why Conserve Water?" Function (The How) WCAC is an office located in the GP Water,Land, and Power Division.
Staff consists of a technical specialist and an education/outreach specialist.
(Continued on Next Page)
55 NONPOTIVII SOURCE POLLUTION- (Continued) Purpose. Work with districts, program and project managers to maximize effectiveness of water conservation opportunities and existing water management programs.
Review regional activities.
Provide technical assistance, information, and guidance.
Establish an education/outreach program and provide regional assistance and support.
Promote water conservation activities.
Enhance public knowledge of mechanisms for safe and environmentally sensitive development,use, and management of water resources.
Build partnerships with other agencies and interested groups.
Provide Reclamation with the knowledge and opportunities to better serve public needs as they relate to water conservation. Goals and objectives. Technical Assistance.
Technical Resource Bank.
Resource media index and library. ADP software index and library Technical expertise reference. Public contact reference. Records of water conservation activities. Other's (as needed).
Project/District Water Use Enhancement Plans.
Assistance with evaluation of current water use.
Facilitation of program and project managers' meetings to examine conservation obstacles and identify methods to maximize conservation using existing programs and funding sources.
Participation in review of existing policies and program authorizations.
(Continued on Next Page)
56 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- (Continued) River Basin (Basinwide) Assessments.
Assistance with plan-of-study development to insure that multi-interest water conservation elements are adequately addressed.
Development of water conservation assessments.
Offer of Reclamation expertise to Indian tribes and other non-Reclamation entities throughout any given basin. Education/Outreach.
Education Resource Library.
Regional Water Conservation and Management Speakers' Bureau. Curriculum/lesson plan file. Video and text collection. Education/outreach contact list. File of ongoing and potential water conservation/management education activities. Western Watercourse information,curriculum, and materials.
Western Watercourse and Project WET
Development of water conservation module for Project WET. Development of water conservation module for Adult Watercourse. Cosponsoring of workshops and/or town meetings on water conservation topics. Provision of writing, print shop, graphic arts, and video lab support.
Other education/outreach pilot activities.
State/National Water Education Week/Month.
Water Education Summit(2 students each county meet in unoccupied legislative chambers for 4 days to attend workshops on water policy and management and develop water management decision document for the Governor that would list recommendations for improving water management in Montana).
(Continued on Next Page)
57 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- (Continued) Regional Water Conservation and Management Seminars (involving program and project managers throughout the Region).
Water Education Forums.
Cooperative state water fairs.
New activities and opportunities as they arise.
Liaison to state education boards and councils.
Regionwide Cooperative Efforts.
Education/Outreach partnerships with other interested parties, agencies, and groups.
Cooperative outreach advisory groups.
Partnership with Region's Special Assistant for Native American Affairs.
Utilization of existing newsletters,journals, bulletins, and magazines to promote water conservation and related programs and activities.
Promotion of informal networking (time provided during conferences and seminars, encourage proactive communication).
Designation of an education/outreach contact in each project office.
Liaison to leadership councils/boards of other agencies and groups.
The Need: One Example—Montana Water Awareness Month (Overhead)
What is Water Awareness Month?
It is increasingly important that we recognize the value and the current status of this planet's water resources.
Based on that concern,President George Bush has proclaimed 1992 as the Year of Clean Water.
(Continued on Next Page)
58 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION- (Continued) To kick off the Year of Clean Water, Governor Stan Stephens proclaimed January 1992 as Montana Water Awareness Month.
What is being achieved for Water Conservation?
Young people(and their parents) throughout Montana are significantly more aware of how precious, how limited, and how much in demand our water resources are.
Water users and managers in all arenas are being provided a forum in which they can share their concerns and their efforts to present a balanced picture of multi-use water needs.
Creativity and concern for water quality and quantity are peaked in hands-on opportunities for students to be active participants in the problem-solving process toward improved water resource management.
State and National priority is being given to water conservation. Closing The Regional Water Conservation Advisory Center was created on the philosophical premise that it would work with the districts, to serve and assist in the development of cooperative and proactive water resource management. Through the course of the draft plan's review and comment,there was criticism of the Center for not taking a stronger "police" role in its functional approach,and for not being specifically programmatic. We rejected both of these tactics because we sincerely believe that through communication,cooperation, and education, we have a better chance of successfully working through the complexities of improved water resource management.
59 1992 ATTENDEES Ed Albert Jack Byers Frenchman Valley Irrigation District USBR Thomas F. Donnelly* Box 297 P.O. Box 36900 National Water Resources Association Culbertson,NE Billings, MT 59107-6900 James Doyle Wayne Allen Lester Byers - 4000 E. Hwy 402 Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District 2 Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Assn. Loveland,CO 80537 P.O. Box 165 601 N.Park Ave. Courtland, KS 66939 P.O. Box 69 Frank Dragoun Montrose,CO 81401 Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Howard Allison District Mary Ron Cacek P.O. Box 740 Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation Dist. North Platte NRD Holdrege, NE 68949 P.O. Box 541 P.O. Box 36 Gering,NE 69341-0541 Gering, NE 69341 Ben Dumler Myra Ray Alvarado Ron Callahan Past President Bishop-Brodgen Associates Margene 109 Bradley Drive 165 S. Union Blvd.,Suite 670 Four States Irrigation Council Fort Collins, CO 80524 Denver,CO 445 Grove Avenue Las Animas,CO 81054 Eulin Ebsen Melissa Anderson Betty Senator urn Wirth's Office Stan Christensen Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska Nebraska Department of Water Resources Box 446 Ralph Best Box 101 Red Cloud, NE 68970 Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District Bridgeport, NE 69336 RR.I, Box 27 Fred EchoHawk Oxford, NE 68967 Winston Churchill Central Colorado Water Conservancy District Beryl 3209 W.28th St. John Bigham Shoshone Irrigation District Greeter, CO 80631 Kay 337 East First St. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Powell, WY 82435 Gordon Fassett State Engineers Office JoAn Bjarko Emmett Coxbill Herschler Bldg.,4E Carol Cheyenne, WY 82009-2513 Richard Black Goshen Irrigation District Marilyn P.O. Box 717 LeRoy Feagler KSU Torrington, WY 82240 Arlene 2804 Bradhaue Goshen Irrigation District Manhattan,KS Mark Crookston P.O. Box 717 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Torrington, WY 82240 Jeffrey Bogle Central Nebraska Public Power ex Irrigation Jeff Dahlstrom Joseph D. Flory District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Salt River Project P.O. Box 740 351 N. Williams Holdrege, NE 68949 Jim Davidson Mesa,AZ 85203 Sargent Irrigation District Bonnie Bonnivier 402 N.1st St. ' Butch Francis Magna - Herbicide Division Sargent, NE 68874 Debbie P.O. Box 11192 Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Bakersfield, CA 93389 Norm DeMott P.O. Box 849 Goshen Irrigation District Mills, WY 32644 Kevin Boyd P.O. Box 717 Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Torrington, WY 82240 Bill Franks District Pat P.O. Box 740 Rick DeVore Goshen Irrigation District Holdrege, NE 68949 USBR P.O. Box 717 P.O. Box 36900 Torrington, WY 82240 Don Brosz Billings, MT 59107-6900 University of Wyoming Cart Freeman 2301 Hillside Drive David Dillman Marian Laramie, WY 82070 Lydia Kirwin Irrigation Dist. No. 1 Pathfinder Irrigation District Box 660 P.O. Box 338 Gaylord, KS 67638 Mitchell, NE 69357 (Continued on Next Page)
60 1992 ATTENDEES (Continued)
A. Jack Garner Paul Henneck Robert Jesse U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Co. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Eastern Colorado Projects Office 808 23rd Avenue P.O. Box 515 11056W. Co. Rd. 18E Greeley, CO 80631 Pueblo, CO 81003 Loveland,CO 80537 Marion Hessler Lester Johnson Lee Garrett Kerran Maureen Mirage Flats Irrigation District Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation District Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District HC 56 Box 150 P.O. Box 541 Box 15 C,Heritage Plaza Hay Springs, NE 69347 Gering, NE 69341-0541 Cambridge, NE 69022
Bob Gifford Jake Hiegel Peter Juba North Platte NRD Pathfinder Irrigation District Board of Water Works P.O. Box 41 P.O. Box 338 P.O. Box 400 Harrisburg, NE 69345 Mitchell, NE 69357 Pueblo, CO 81005
Bob Gifford, Jr.* Greg Hobbs* Douglass Kahrs North Platte NRD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Betty P.O. Box 41 Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska Harrisburg, NE 69345 Elvin Hobson Box 446 Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District 2 Red Cloud, NE 68970 Don Giroux P.O. Box 165 Thttle Applegate,Inc. Courtland, KS 66939 Bruce Kaman 11990 Grant St., Suite 410 Kathryne Northglenn, CO 80233 Harlan Hock Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrig. District Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation P.O. Box 541 Leon Glenn District Gering,NE 69341-0541 Mirage Flats Irrigation District P.O. Box 740 HC 56 Box 150 Holdrege, NE 68949 Jerry F. Kenny Hay Springs, NE 69347 Boyle Engineering Corporation Denny Hodgson Suite 200,165 S. Union Dave Graves Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Lakewood,CO Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Company 808 23rd Avenue Gary Hoffner Melvin Knaub Greeley, CO 80631 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Gering Irrigation District 981 Rundell Road Nancy Gray Phillip Hort Gering,NE 69341 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Betty Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation District Thomas Knutson Lynn Griffis P.O. Box 541 Loop Basin Reclamation District Nebraska Water Users Association Gering, NE 69341-0541 Box 137 R.R. 1, Box 29A Farwell, NE 68838 Lexington, NE 68850 Darwin Housholder Lorene Roger Korell William Groskopf Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District 2 Pat Kathryn P.O. Box 165 Pathfinder Irrigation District Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation Dist. Courtland, KS 66939 P.O. Box 338 P.O. Box 541 Mitchell, NE 69357 Gering, NE 69341-0541 Larry Howard City of Loveland - Water Department Jerry Kotschwar Keith Hahn 204 Ranae Drive Frenchman Valley Irrigation District Bureau of Reclamation Loveland, CO 80537 Box 297 P.O. Box 36900 Culbertson, NE Billings, MT 59107-6900 Loretta Howard Bureau of Reclamation Bob Kutz Melvin Heimbouch P.O. Box 36900 Marla Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation District Billings, MT 59107-6900 Nebr. Kansas Project Office P.O. Box 541 Bureau of Reclamation Gering, NE 69341-0541 Keith Jardine* P.O. Box 1607 Grand Island, NE 68801 Ed Heimbouch Dr. Joe Jeffrey* Gering Irrigation District Veterinarian/Rancher 981 Rundell Road Gering, NE 69341 (Continued on Next Page)
61 1992 AINIENDEES (Continued) John Lawson Max Miller James Pickering, Jr. Bureau of Reclamation Colleen Margaret Ann North Platte River Projects Ted B. Miller Co.,Inc. Farmers Irrigation District P.O. Box 1630 P.O. Box 460, Hwy 92E P.O. Box 307 Mills, WY 82644 Gering, NE 69341 Scottsbluff, NE 69363-0307
Darwin Lee Dennis Miller LeRoy Pieper Rae Lee Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District North Platte NRD Farwell Irrigation District Route 1 Box 137 Ted B. Miller,Jr. Mitchell, NE 69357 Farwell, NE 68838-0137 Dorothy Ted B. Miller Co.,Inc. Bob Pike Gary Lewis, Ph.D.,PE* P.O. Box 460, Hwy 92E U.S. Bureau of Reclamation HDR Engineering,Inc. Gering, NE 69341 P.O. Box 36900 303 E. 17th Avenue Billings, MT 59107-6900 Denver,CO 80203 John Moore Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Manuel Pineda Ev Long North Poudre Irrigation Company Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Bobby Morris 38280 Weld Co. Rd.19 Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Assn. Fort Collins, CO 80524 James Lundgren 601 N.Park Ave., P.O. Box 69 Nebraska Water Users,Inc. Montrose,CO 81401 Paul Pritis RR.I Box 29A Marilyn Lexington,NE 68850 Kenneth Nelson Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska Kansas Bostwick Irrg. District 2 Box 446 Chuck Lynch P.O. Box 165 Red Cloud, NE 68970 Ruth Courtland,KS 66939 North Sterling Irrigation District Robert Prouty 23424 Co. Rd.33 Edward Norlin Bureau of Reclamation Sterling, CO 80751 Shoshone/Heart Mtn. Irrigation Dist. 203 West 2nd 337 East First St. Grand Island, NE 68802-1607 Dennis Marsh Powell, WY 82435 Vandeen Kenneth Randolph,Jr. North Poudre Irrigation District Joe Novotny Bureau of Reclamation 7480N. Co. Rd 15 Tkvin Loops Irrigation District North Platte River Projects Fort Collins, CO R.R. I Box 22 P.O. Box 1630 Elyria, NE 68837 Mills, WY 82644 Ed Martin Gering Irrigation District Ray Nowak Jim Rawlings 981 Rundell Road Betty USBR Gering,NE 69341 Twin Loops Bee. District P.O. Box 36900 RR. Billings, MT 59107-6900 John Maser Elba, NE 68835 Joyce Dave Ritchie Farmers Irrigation District Roy L Patterson Joanie P.O. Box 307 Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District Twin Loops Reclamation District P.O. Box Scottsbluff, NE 69363-0307 116 R.R. I, Box 129A Cambridge,NE 69022 Scotia, NE 68875 William G. McCracken Bureau of Reclamation Neal Payne Wes Robbins* North Platte River Project Donna ASCS Irrigation District P.O. Box 1630 Goshen Mills, WY 82644 P.O. Box 717 James Rogers Torrington, WY 82240 Pathfinder Irrigation District James C. McDanold P.O. Box 338 Petersen Office of State Engineer Robert Mitchell, NE 69357 1313 Sherman St. Arleen Denver, CO 80203 N.P.P.D. Jerry Sack P.O. Box 310 Loop Basin Reclamation District North Platte, NE 69101 Jack Miles Box 137 Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Farwell, NE 68838 P.O. 849 Mills, WY 82644
(Continued on Next Page)
62 /992 AlsiENDEES (continued)
Don Schepler Neil Stessman Robert Ward Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation USBR Colorado Water Resources District Research Institute P.O. Box 36900 Colorado State University P.O. Box 740 Billings, MT 59107-6900 Fort Collins, CO 80523 Holdrege, NE 68949 Robert Stieben Ed Warner Gene Schleiger Kate U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Lois North Poudre Irrigation Company P.O. Box 60340 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District P.O. Box 100 ' Grand Junction,CO 81506 Wellington, CO 80549 Merlyn Schudel Brian Werner Thelma Dennis Strauch Wendy Twin Loops Irrigation District Evalou Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District R.R. I, Box 129 Pathfinder Irrigation District Scotia, NE 68875 P.O. Box 338 Candee Werth Mitchell, NE 69357 Randal Tom Schwarz Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Linda Leland Stroup Nebraska Water Users Kirwin-Webster Irrigation District Jerry Westbrook R.R.2 Box 660 Nancy Bertrand, NE Gaylord,KS 67638 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Gerry Sheets Jim Struble E. Mark Williams Sargent Irrigation District Christa Wyoming Concrete Pipe Cc. 402 N.1st St., Box 99 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 125 Bryan Stock 'null Sargent, NE 68874 Casper, WY 82609 Larry Swanson Harold Shreve H & RW Irrigation District Thomas Williamson Maryann Box 297 Tipton and Kalmbach,Inc. Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Culbertson, NE 1331 17th St., Suite 700 P.O. Box 849 Denver,CO 80202 Mills, WY 82644 Ron Thaemert Thaemert & Assoc.,Inc. Ron Wolf Tom Simpson P.O. Box 1457 Susan Southeastern Colorado Water Coneervancy Ft. Coffins, CO 80522 Twin Loupe Districts District R.R. I, Box 9 P.O. Box 440 Dean Thede Scotia, NE 68875 Pueblo, CO 81002 Twin Loops Rec. District R.R. I, Box 96B Jim Wooldridge Roger Sinden St. Paul, NE 68873 Nancy Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Charles L Thomson Norma Sitrman" Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy C. Dean Yonts* Frenchman Valley & H & RW Irrigation District District University of Nebraska Box 297 P.O. Box 440 4502 Ave I Culbertson, NE Pueblo,CO 81002 Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Brett Skinner Kip Travis Loren Zabel Mirage Flats Irrigation District Merrill Lynch Mary Jane HC 56 Box 150 Kirwin Irrigation Dist. No. 1 Hay Springs, NE Bill Vandivort Box 660 Goshen Irrigation District Gaylord, KS 67638 J. 0. Smith P.O. Box 717 Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation District Torrington, WY 82240 P.O. Box 541 Gering,NE 69341-0541 David Wagner Colorado State University Duane Smith P.O. Box 636 Smith Geotechnical Engineering Ft. Collins, CO 2310 E. Prospect, Suite B Fort Collins, CO Cliff Walsh" Nebraska Natural Resources Commission Steve Spann* 301 Centennial Mall South,P.O. Box 94876 Colorado State Engineers Office Lincoln, NE 68509 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver,CO 80203
63