Arkansas Water Plan jelling
Conservation key as wells dry up, farms tap surface flows
The plan to measure and address the gap between the demand and availability of water in Arkansas could be finalized in the next two weeks.
The Arkansas Water Plan draft indicates the gap is quite wide — as much as 2.3 trillion gallons per year by 2050. The plan indicates the state will demand 4.6 trillion gallons per year by that time.
The state has enough excess surface water to make up for the shrinking supply of groundwater, but that water doesn’t necessarily flow in the right areas or at the right times. It would have to be diverted and stored to be used, an expensive proposition.
Because farming accounts for about 80 percent of Arkansas’ water use, the plan calls for farmers to find ways to conserve. If nothing changes, the plan forecasts the alluvial aquifer — the Delta’s supply of underground water — will be mostly dry by 2050.
Despite the dire prediction, the plan doesn’t include any recommendations to limit the amount of water used. Instead, it recommends incentives to encourage water users to conserve what they have.
“We need to do everything we can to evaluate conservation measures, and we’re moving in that direction,” said Evan Teague, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau. “Should some of these conservation efforts play out like we think they might, we could actually see a decrease in the amount of water used by the end of this planning period.”
“I wouldn’t force restrictions, at least not anytime soon,” he said.
AGRICULTURE WEIGHS IN
Though the plan doesn’t call for water-use restrictions, companies and farmer advocacy groups are concerned that it could set the precedent for future regulations.
Stuttgart-based Riceland, the nation’s largest miller and marketer of rice, is particularly concerned.
Arkansas produces more than half the rice grown in the United States. The water intense crop used 1.8 trillion gallons of water in 2010 — 55 percent of all irrigation water used — according to the water plan.
In written comments, the company said it would like a disclaimer that states that data included in the water plan are for forecasting measures only and are insufficient for legal and business purposes.
The company was against water regulation but for government incentives.
“The final version of the
2014 [Arkansas Water Plan] should not advocate, imply or suggest any laws, policies or regulations that diminish private property rights, restrict water use on private property, or allow for condemnation of private water infrastructure,” said Karl Kennedy, chief executive of the company, in a letter to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, which has the task of updating the plan.
Similarly, Arkansas Rice Farmers, an industry trade association, called for more aggressive tax credits.
“We already know the existing tax credits are grossly inadequate. Please do not waste time studying what we all know is inadequate,” said the association in an email to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
The state’s existing tax credits should cover a larger percentage of the cost, have higher annual limits and allow a longer period to claim the credit, the association said.
Agricultural groups highlighted areas where they thought the data were off. Riceland said the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission overestimated the amount of rice that would be planted in the future. The Arkansas Farm Bureau said it may have overestimated the total amount of irrigated acres by 2050. The Agricultural Council of Arkansas referred to a report by the University of Arkansas that showed inconsistencies in data.
“We believe the data projections for supply and demand are lacking in accuracy and are, in fact, very likely to be inaccurate, especially in the [later] years of the forecast and gap analysis due to inaccuracy in data and misguided assumptions in forecasting,” the council said in a letter to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
Nevertheless, Teague of the Arkansas Farm Bureau said the commission’s data collection was fair.
“I’m not necessarily questioning their accuracy, but as with any project you can always improve your data set,” he said. “I think we’re reasonably confident in the ANRC’s collection of the data. Arkansas has one of the more robust programs related to water-use data.”
Though farm groups questioned future projections, past data show a steady drop in groundwater. From 1984 to 2008, 173 wells recorded an average decline of 4.5 inches per year in the state’s main underground water source.
POULTRY LITTER PLANNING
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission received nearly 300 comments after holding about 100 meetings across the state. In response, the commission made several major changes to the water plan.
The commission is recommending that the Arkansas Legislature require nutrientmanagement plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure throughout the state.
Currently the plans are only required in Northwest Arkansas. They were implemented after the city of Tulsa and its water utility filed a lawsuit in December 2001 against Tyson Foods, Cobb-Vantress, Peterson Farms, Simmons Foods Inc., Cargill Inc. and George’s Inc.
Tulsa claimed that excess phosphorus from poultry litter caused a foul taste and odor in its drinking water. Many Northwest Arkansas streams and rivers flow into Oklahoma, which affects their drinking water.
Edward Swaim, water division manager for the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, said water-quality reports were improving in Northwest Arkansas.
However, Peco Foods, which is building a hatchery and poultry processing plant near Pocahontas and a feed mill in Corning, is going to generate more poultry litter to a new area of the state, he said.
There are concerns about what effect that will have on the environment there and “there’s a fairness question,” Swaim said.
Tyson Foods voiced support for the measure in public comments.
“We support nutrient management plans wherever we have a footprint,” said Worth Sparkman, spokesman for Tyson. “[Growers] are not required to unless it’s mandatory by law wherever they are; however, we strongly encourage all of our growers to have nutrient management plans.”
Sparkman said the comments stemmed from environmental concerns.
“That’s where the rubber meets the road on that one,” he said.
Mike Daniels, an environmental management specialist for the University of Arkansas’ Agriculture Division, said the problem with poultry litter is that it contains equal parts nitrogen and phosphorus.
Plants generally require more nitrogen than phosphorus, so farmers have to put down the amount of litter required to meet the nitrogen need, which exceeds the plants’ phosphorus need.
The litter provides income for poultry growers and cheap fertilizer for crop farmers, but the extra phosphorus runs off into streams and can cause algae blooms and oxygen depletion, which harm aquatic life.
“We want to have enough nutrients to meet the crop need but not so much to affect the larger environment,” Daniels said. “You’re trying to strike that balance.”
The nutrient-management plans measure crop need against risk to show farmers how much litter they can apply.
“It sounds like a great success story, but it has been a hardship on our farmers,” Daniels said. “From a science standpoint, we think that the situation in eastern Arkansas, there’s probably less risk, and there may be other ways to handle that.”
EXCESS WATER AND MONITORING
Agricultural groups were united in pushing the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission to raise the cap on excess water that can be taken from streams and rivers, though conservation groups strongly opposed the measure.
Currently, 25 percent of excess water can be removed from a river or stream after taking into account all other legally protected uses, such as navigation and aquatic life.
Farming groups had wanted to raise the cap to 75 percent.
“We felt like that definition has been in the water plan since the 1990 revision, and we felt like the state’s ability to monitor stream flows, do projections, has improved and their permitting program is more robust,” the Farm Bureau’s Teague said. “We have more and better data, so we ought to be able to use more of that excess.”
But environmental groups said the 25 percent limit acts as an important safeguard for wildlife.
“So the issue really at hand is that it’s really difficult to estimate instream flow need in terms of what’s suitable for maintaining fisheries,” said Maureen McClung, conservation chairman for the Arkansas Audubon Society and assistant professor of biology at Hendrix College. “Because of that uncertainly that’s involved in estimating that instream flow need, we need a little bit of a buffer in case we miss the target.”
Ultimately, the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission said, the Arkansas Legislature should consider raising the limit in areas where there is a need beyond what is legally allowed after completing scientific studies to ensure there is plenty of water left for other uses.
Additionally, the commission will no longer ask the Legislature for the “authority to purchase, install, and read meters on selected alluvial wells including the authority to lease or condemn sites for meter installation” — a provision that farming groups were united against.
Swaim said the commission was attempting to increase the accuracy of its data.
“Everybody told us they didn’t want that level of intrusion,” he said. “At the same time, and this was more in the meetings than the written comments, it’s apparent there would be a lot of people who would be glad to have a meter to improve efficiency.”
Swaim said the commission received a final copy of the plan this week and could take action to approve it as early as Dec. 9.
“I think everyone understands that we need to address the demand issues and switch from groundwater to surface water,” Teague said. “Our farmers have been working to transition … for quite a while, and it’s an expensive proposition to do that.”