Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research A publication of the Arkansas Water Resources Center Issue 2018 Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research A publication of the Arkansas Water Resources Center University of Arkansas Don Tyson Center for Agricultural Sciences 1371 W. Altheimer Drive Room 133 Fayetteville, AR 72703 website: arkansas-water-center.uark.edu EDITORS Erin E. Scott Brian E. Haggard Arkansas Water Resources Center Arkansas Water Resources Center Program Manager Director [email protected] [email protected] 479-502-9854 479-575-2879 The Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research is a publication of the Arkansas Water Resources Center (AWRC). This bulletin is produced in an effort to share water research relevant to Arkansas water stakeholders in an easily searchable and aesthetically engaging way. This is the second publication of the bulletin and will be published annually. The submission of a paper to this bulletin is appropriate for topics at all related to water resources, by any- one conducting water research or investigations. This includes but is not limited to university researchers, consulting firms, watershed groups, and other agencies. Prospective authors should read the “Introduction to the Arkanasas Bulletin of Water Research” contained within this publication and should refer to the AWRC website for additional infromation. arkansas-water-resources-center.uark.edu The Arkansas Water Resources Center is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by authors of articles in the Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research. Some of this material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Geological Survey 104B program under grant agreement No. G16AP00040 and administered by the Arkansas Water Resources Center. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as repre- senting the opinions or policies of the U.S. Geological Survey. Cover Photo (left to right): Researchers conduct field work on rice evapotranspiration, courtesy of Benjamin Run- kle, University of Arkansas professor; Southern Redbell Dace, courtesy of Dustin Lynch, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission; Buffalo River, source unknown. Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research A publication of the Arkansas Water Resources Center Issue 2018 Table of Contents Introduction to the Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research (reprint) Erin E. Scott and Brian E. Haggard...........................................................................................................1 Comparative Microbial Community Dynamics in a Karst Aquifer System and Proximal Surface φ Stream in Northwest Arkansas Matthew D. Covington, Kristen E. Gibson, and Josue Rodriguez................................................3 Investigating Impact of Lead Service Lines in Drinking Water Distribution Systems at the City φ of Tulsa Kaleb Belcher and Wen Zhang.................................................................................................................9 .. Characterization of Nutrient Sources, Transport Pathways, and Transformations Using Stable φ Isotope and Geochemical Tools in the Big Creek Watershed of Northwest Arkansas Kelly Sokolosky, Phillip D. Hays, and Erik Pollock.............................................................................14 Combined Application of Nutrient Manipulation and Hydrogen Peroxide Exposure to Selectively Control Cyanobacteria Growth and Promote Eukaryote Phytoplankton Production φ in Aquaculture Ponds Amit Kumar Sinha and William Reed Green.......................................................................................24 Herbicide Mitigation Potential of Tailwater Recovery Systems in the Cache River Critical φ Groundwater Area Cammy D. Willett and Deborah L. Leslie..............................................................................................34 φ Assessment of Strategies to Address Future Irrigation Water Shortage in the Arkansas Delta Tyler Knapp and Qiuqiong Huang.........................................................................................................40 Tracking the Growth of On-Site Irrigation Infrastructure in the Arkansas Delta with Remote φ Sensing Analysis Grant West and Kent Kovacs....................................................................................................................46 φ Regionalizing Agricultural Field Evapotranspiration Observations Benjamin R.K. Runkle..................................................................................................................................54 Educating the Masses Using Mass Media for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Patricia Ouei...................................................................................................................................................60 φ Denotes research that is part of the US Geological Survey’s 104B Grant Program Image caption: Rice field in Arkansas. Photo from Valley Irrigation. Assessment of Strategies to Address Future Irrigation Water Shortage in the Arkansas Delta Tyler Knapp1 and Qiuqiong Huang2* 1Department of Community and Economic Development, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arkansas *Corresponding author Abstract: Conversion to surface water irrigation has been identified as one of the Key Points: critical initiatives to address the decline in groundwater supply in Arkansas. Using the • More than 70% of sampled Arkansas Irrigation Use Survey conducted by the PIs with collaborators, this study producers in Arkansas are likely uses statistical analysis to estimate Arkansas agricultural producers’ willingness to pay to be willing to pay more than (WTP) for off-farm surface water and examine which factors have predictive powers the average pumping cost of of producers’ WTP for irrigation water. The estimated mean WTP for irrigation groundwater to purchase surface water is $33.21/acre-foot. Comparison indicates a significant share of producers are water from an irrigation district. likely to have higher WTPs for surface water than the average pumping cost in the • The level of willingness to pay study area. Producers located in areas with less groundwater resources have higher for surface water is positively WTPs. Producers that are more concerned with a water shortage occurring in the correlated with the extent of state in the next 10 years have higher WTPs. A somewhat unexpected result is that groundwater shortage as per- participation in the Conservation Reserve Program predicts lower WTPs. One pos- ceived by producers. sible explanation is that farmers see the transfer of land out of crop production as a • The existence of other conser- more viable financial decision when groundwater supply decreases. vation programs may lower the level of willingness to pay for surface water. 40 Arkansas Bulletin of Water Research A publication of the Arkansas Water Resources Center Assessment of Strategies to Address Future Irrigation Water Shortage in the Arkansas Delta Introduction Methods Irrigation is the most important input in Arkansas’s The data set comes from the Arkansas Irrigation Use crop production. Nearly 86% of irrigation water in Arkan- Survey conducted by the PIs with collaborators from Mis- sas in 2013 was sourced from groundwater in the Mississippi sissippi State University. The survey was completed in Oc- River Valley alluvial aquifer (MRVAA, NASS, 2014; Schrader tober 2016 via telephone interviews. Potential survey re- 2008). However, the continuous and unsustainable pump- spondents come from the water user database managed by ing has put the MRVAA in danger by withdrawing at rates the ANRC and all commercial crop growers identified by greater than the natural rate of recharge. In the 2014 Ar- Dun & Bradstreet records for the state of Arkansas. The kansas Water Plan by the Arkansas Natural Resources Com- final sample size is 199 producers that completed the survey mission (ANRC), an annual gap in groundwater as large as in its entirety. 8.6 billion cubic meters (7 million acre-feet) is projected The key information used in this study comes from the for 2050 and most of the expected shortfall is attributed to WTP section. Each producer first answered an initial ques- agriculture (ANRC, 2015). To combat growing projected tion “Would you be willing to pay $___ per acre-foot of scarcity, two critical initiatives have been identified: conser- water to purchase water from an irrigation district?” When a vation measures to improve on-farm irrigation efficiency respondent answered “yes” (“no”), the question was repeat- and infrastructure-based solutions to convert to surface wa- ed at a higher (lower) bid value with a 50% increment; by in- ter (ANRC, 2015). Surface water in Arkansas is relatively creasing the interval between the first and second bid as the abundant and is allocated to farmers based on riparian wa- initial bid level increase we control for acquiescence bias (Al- ter rights. The ANRC (2015) estimates that average annu- hassan et al., 2013; Lee et al. 2015). For respondents who al excess surface water available for interbasin transfer and answered “no” to the initial bid and “no” to the following non-riparian use is about 7.6 million acre-feet. Currently, the lower bid, a third WTP question with a nominal bid amount purchase of off-farm surface water is relatively rare in Ar- of 50¢/acre-foot was used to determine whether true WTP kansas. In the Farm and Ranch Irrigation survey conducted was zero or if the respondent was offering a protest