ARTICLE INDEX
Volume 4, Number 4
August 1994

WATER SHORTAGES--A WORLDWIDE PROBLEM
The water shortages that Idaho farmers have faced over the past seven or so years are not unique. Fresh water is critically short in many areas of the world. On a worldwide basis over 80 percent of the water used by humans goes to agriculture for the production of food. In Idaho, agriculture accounts for over 97 percent of our water use.

Currently, there are over 625 million irrigated acres in the world--about 17 percent of the world's cropland. Countries with the largest amounts of irrigated farmland include India (138 million acres), China (117 million acres), United States (48 million acres), Pakistan (40 million acres), and Russia (25 million acres). About 10 percent of the cropland in the U.S. is irrigated. Idaho has almost 4 million irrigated acres.

Many of us are familiar with some of the water shortages that are serious in the western U.S.. We all know about the water shortage problems that agriculture must routinely deal with in California and Arizona. Farmers on the high plains of northwestern Texas are shifting from irrigated to dryland farming because of the declining water table of the Ogallala aquifer. Farmers in the Yakima Valley of Washington have had their water use seriously reduced in the past few years because of snowpack shortfalls in the mountains. The list goes on and on.

Water shortages in the U.S. are not serious when compared to many other parts of the world. A prime example is Pakistan. Pakistan is geographically a small country that must feed a population of 125 million on 42 million acres of cropland (compared to the USA with a population of 255 million and 490 million acres of cropland). Water is chronically short in Pakistan. In fact the lack of adequate quantities of irrigation water is not only resulting in reduced crop yields but is also causing many soils to become saline.

The 1993 edition of State of the World by Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute based in Washington, D.C., reported that there are currently at least 26 countries with serious water shortages. Countries with serious water shortages are defined as those that have per capita renewable water supplies of less than 260,000 gallons per year. These 26 countries have a collective population of over 230 million. Some of the countries on this list include Egypt, Rwanda, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Singapore. Mr. Brown estimates that by the year 2010 at least eight more countries will join this list. In contrast per capita water use in Idaho is currently 5,760,000 gallons per year.

On a worldwide basis it is apparent that the rapidly increasing human population (an additional 94 million people each year!) is straining our water resources. This strain has put pressure on agriculture to improve its water use efficiency. In response the use of microirrigation techniques which includes the use of drip irrigation and micro sprinklers are gaining momentum. By 1992 microirrigation techniques were practiced on over 4 million acres. The United States, Spain, Australia, and Israel are leaders in this technology.

So you can see that even within water short years, Idahoan's are flush with water compared to many other areas in the world.
(R. L. Mahler)

GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING
(This is the first in a two part series on Idaho's groundwater quality monitoring program.)
A Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program for the state of Idaho was developed as part of the Groundwater Quality Plan created from the Groundwater Quality Protection Act of 1989. An effective groundwater protection program requires that the public, which includes private citizens, businesses, and all levels of government, collectively manages its activities to prevent groundwater contamination. With these issues to consider, the Groundwater Quality Council and coordinating state agencies determined that the basis for the protection plan should be general guidance for protection of groundwater throughout the state. This guidance is provided through a comprehensive series of policy statements and a strategy for implementation.

Five separate policies on the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program and Data Information System were developed from the Groundwater Quality Plan. Each policy has a rationale or purpose along with specific points on how to implement that policy. In support of these policies, the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program was developed.

Monitoring is an essential evaluation tool for prevention, regulatory, and remediation activities. Sampling conducted in the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program indicates if the protection and prevention efforts are effectively working. Monitoring is conducted on three levels; statewide, regional, and local. Monitoring results indicate the presence or absence, and the actual amounts detected of biological, radiological, and chemical constituents of concern. Monitoring data are analyzed to determine if degradation is occurring to establish ambient groundwater quality and to evaluate the success of protection efforts.

The monitoring program is intended to complement other long term monitoring programs to avoid duplication of effort and to increase the data base on groundwater quality. An environmental data management system will house the results from different monitoring efforts. Results of monitoring are to be made available to local, state, and federal agencies, and to the public on request.

Goals and Design of the Groundwater Monitoring Program
The goals and objectives of monitoring were carefully defined as the first step in the design of the program. The Groundwater Quality Protection Act stated the major goals of Idaho's monitoring program were to:

• Assess current ambient statewide groundwater quality.
• Assess problem areas in groundwater quality, including points of use and points of contamination.

• Identification of local variability so that ambient groundwater quality data may be interpreted accurately.
• Collection, evaluation, and dissemination of groundwater quality data.
• Identification of any areas where use of groundwater for drinking water supplies may pose a public health threat. Identification of areas where other beneficial uses such as agricultural and industrial uses are threatened or are not supported.
• Development of products including a geographic information system that will facilitate management decisions regarding the resource and will promote public awareness of groundwater protection.

It was decided that historical data will be analyzed and any groundwater quality monitoring programs designed to provide data of sufficient quantity and quality to best meet the anticipated needs of users of the data. The framework for the development of a three-part monitoring program was based in part on the recommendations expressed by Idaho groundwater experts who attended a workshop conducted by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) in April 1990 and on input from the Groundwater Quality Council. The three-parts are: (1). Statewide Monitoring, (2). Regional Monitoring, and (3). Local Monitoring. The three parts were designed to complement each other by allowing different degrees of quantity of data. The three parts differ in purpose, scale, and duration and knowledge gained from each part can and will be used to improve the other parts. These three parts will be discussed in greater detail in the next issue.

HOME*A*SYST COMES TO IDAHO
The Homestead Assessment System (Home*A*Syst) is a nationally recognized educational tool that has been designed to assist the rural homeowner in:

• assessing activities or conditions on their property that may negatively impact their groundwater and therefore their drinking water supply; and
• correcting at risk activities or conditions by providing Best Management Practices or recommended modifications.

• Drinking water well condition
• Pesticide storage and handling
• Fertilizer storage and handling
• Petroleum product storage
• Hazardous waste management
• Household wastewater treatment
• Livestock waste storage
• Livestock yards management
• Silage storage
• Milking center wastewater treatement

• Soil Conservation Service
• Soil Conservation Commission
• Soil Conservation Districts
• Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts
• University of Idaho, Cooperative Extension System
• Idaho Department of Agriculture
• Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
• Idaho Department of Water Resources
• District Health Department, District V
• Idaho Water Resources Research Institute
• Farmers Home Administration

The planning committee has also developed and submitted a 319 grant proposal to lay the groundwork for statewide implementation of Home*A*Syst. If awarded, the tasks that will be accomplished include:

• Pilot testing a booklet on water quality and homes in the Cascade Reservoir area;
• Developing statewide measurement plans to evaluate project implementation;
• Promoting Home*A*Syst statewide;
• Obtaining implementation commitments for the following year;
• Developing an overall strategy for statewide implementation; and
• Developing supplemental fact/work sheets on urban pesticide/fertilizer use, stormwater disposal, and small and large scale grazing management.

GROUNDWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: VOLUNTARY BMPs FOR AGRICULTURE
(This is the second in a series of articles on the potential effectiveness of the voluntary approach to reducing agrichemical contamination of groundwater.)
At least five questions must be asked in determining how conducive a given environment is to voluntary change:

1. To what degree is there consensus among farmers that a groundwater problem exists?
2. Is there consensus about the causes of the problem?
3. Do individuals link their own situation and behaviors to the problem?
4. Do farmers sense that viable alternatives to current practices exist?
5. If alternative practices are modeled and nurtured, do they become acceptable?

1. To what degree is there consensus among farmers that a groundwater problem exists?
By the mid-1980s, polls of both farm and nonfarm populations were identifying drinking water quality as a major social issue. For example, a 1986 survey of 400 Iowa adults conducted before the legislative debate on the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act found that, among six policy issues, drinking water ranked third--lower than economic development and schools, but higher than soil erosion, the state highway system, and recreational facilities. For the farm population subset of that study, the drinking water quality issue ranked first.
Other surveys conducted in the same time frame also found high priorities assigned to protecting water quality. Overall, then, the results of various surveys do reflect a qualified consensus among farmers about the importance of drinking water quality.

2. Is there consensus about the causes of the problem?
Contaminants other than agricultural chemicals also threaten groundwater quality. Often groundwater-related problems--whether from agricultural chemicals or other sources--are site specific. Yet surveys have found that both farm and nonfarm residents identify farm chemicals over other sources as the predominant major threat. In a statewide survey of 801 Iowa adults, just over half (52 percent) identified farm chemicals as the greatest threat to groundwater quality. Industrial residues, the second-rated source, were cited by 38 percent of those surveyed.
In subsequent questioning, perceptions were systematically collected about 10 alleged sources of groundwater pollution. Again, farm pesticides were the source identified most frequently as contributing "a great deal of pollution." Among all respondents, including the farm subset, farm fertilizers ranked second.
Although there has been similarity between farm and nonfarm survey respondents in ranking of pollution sources, farm residents have tended to assign less importance to agricultural sources and more importance to nonagricultural ones. While such a situation could foreshadow a conflict situation, with greater blame being assigned to agricultural sources by nonagricultural residents than by farmers, such does not appear to be the case. A recent survey of 2,000 Iowa farm operators found that 75 percent of them considered agriculture to be too dependent on pesticides and commercial fertilizers.
In addition to having farmers identify or rank sources of groundwater contamination, farm respondents have been asked to provide reactions to attitudinal statements linking agricultural chemicals to water quality. For example, reactions to the following two statements were solicited from northeastern Iowa farmers and rural nonfarm residents:

• So little pesticide residue ever enters the groundwater that it can never pose a health risk for humans.
• Water quality is more an issue for the future. Today the threat from agricultural chemicals is quite small.

3. Do individuals link their own situation and behaviors to the problem?
While large proportions of the farm population appear to "worry about the purity" of their drinking water, there is also evidence that both farm and nonfarm residents believe that their own water supplies are not unhealthful. The tendency is to view groundwater problems as more serious for "the other guy"--people in other communities or states.
Results of a statewide survey of farmers who were asked to rate the seriousness of groundwater problems at different geographic locations reflect this tendency. While 40 percent of Iowa farmers rated groundwater problems in the nation as "very serious," only 8 percent rated groundwater problems on their own farms as "very serious." Conversely, only 2 percent rated problems in the nation as "not at all serious," while 37 percent considered problems on their own farms as "not at all serious."
The tendency to deny that a problem exists close to home has been documented in other contexts, including farmers' denying soil erosion problems on their own land. As has been the experience in soil conservation programs, lack of awareness--or perhaps denial--works against voluntary policy approaches. This parallel in findings casts doubt on voluntary approaches to groundwater protection that are not accompanied by supplemental incentives or disincentives.

(Adapted from Groundwater and Public Policy. Series No. 10 by Steve Padgelt from Iowa State University)

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Water quality management has typically concentrated on limiting negative environmental impacts rather than creating positive ones. However, the Environmental Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, is now moving toward the creation of positive impacts by encouraging the use of ecological restoration.

Despite the water quality improvements achieved through controlling point sources, it is now clear that physical changes to an ecosystem significantly degrade the value of a waterbody and render an aquatic ecosystem even more sensitive to chemical and biological stressors. A large proportion of the surface waters of the United States, especially lakes, streams, and wetlands, have suffered from chemical, biological, and physical habitat degradation. In its recently issued report, the Nation Research Council concluded that habitat degradation is a primary factor limiting attainment of beneficial uses of the nation's surface waters.

Restoration means many things to many people. Some envision successful restoration as the return of an ecosystem to its pristine condition, while others strive to imitate an earlier, natural, self-sustaining ecosystem that can exist in equilibrium with the surrounding landscape. When discussed in the context of water resource management, restoration can also be thought of as a natural, non-mechanical tool that can be used to build upon existing pollution control efforts in order to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The objective of the Act, as stated in Section 101, is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters."

Restoration techniques can in fact serve as natural tools for meeting CWA goals when they are appropriately used to restore the natural dynamics of an ecosystem. There are a number of advantages to this approach. First, restoration efforts (such as restoring riparian vegetation or enhancing a wetland area) may increase public understanding and acceptance. Second, while no restoration or maintenance is cost free, natural techniques may cost less than more traditional water pollution controls. Third, a restored stream ecosystem can be self-sustaining and not require continuous operation and maintenance or periodic technology upgrades or improvements. Natural techniques may also provide longer-term solutions.

Water program managers have the opportunity to use restoration techniques within the context of existing water programs and watershed approaches. Restoration may be thought of as a mosaic of BMPs and other techniques that together address the stressors (both chemical and non-chemical) that impact an aquatic ecosystem and that reverse the loss of the ecosystem's functions. For example, restoration may involve rebuilding the infrastructure of an aquatic ecosystem (e.g., re-configuration of channel morphology, re-establishment of riparian vegetation, and stabilization of stream banks, accompanied by control of excess sediment loading within the watershed) so that waterbody integrity can be attained and maintained.
(Adapted from EPA News-Notes, No. 37)

PROTECT YOUR WELLHEAD!
(This is the second article in a series dealing with wellhead protection.)
To protect your well and its water quality you should use Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are defined as implemented strategies that eliminate or minimize environmental pollution. BMPs are designed to be compatible with good, sound wellhead protection. BMPs can protect the environment and eliminate or minimize the threat of environmental pollution.

There are five major areas where BMP implementation should be considered. These areas include:

1. Well location.
2. Well construction.
3. Well management and maintenance.
4. New wells.
5. Unused wells.

Well management and maintenance. Good maintenance means testing your water every year, keeping the well area clean and accessible, keeping pollutants as far away from the well as possible, and periodically having the well mechanics checked. Additional items to consider include:

• Better management of your existing well.
• Consider if your existing well conforms to current standards.
• Consider moving traffic areas and chemical or gas storage away from the well and upgrading or better management of your septic system.
• Backflow prevention.
• You should use an anti-backflow device when filling pesticide sprayer tanks.
• Consider installing anti-backflow devices on all faucets with hose connections.
• Maintain air gaps between hoses or faucets and the water level.
• Cross-connections are connections between two otherwise separate pipe systems. Water supplies with cross-connections between them put your drinking water at risk. Eliminate cross-connections.

• Water testing.
• Observe water quality in existing wells by testing them annually.
• Test for contaminants that are most likely on your property.
• Further advice on testing can be obtained from your local health department or local Extension office.
• Water testing is done by both public and private laboratories. Consult your local health department.
• Record test results and note changes in water quality over time.

• Well maintenance.
• Your well should require mechanical attention every 10 to 20 years. Contact a qualified well driller or pump installer.

New wells. The fourth item to consider when trying to improve drinking well water quality is to replace your existing well with a new well. It's true that new wells are expensive, but new wells are a good investment for the future. If you consider this option, locate the well away from potential contamination sources and work to maintain the quality of the well. When considering a new well, there are a few simple principles or BMPs to follow. These principles include:

• Follow recommended minimum separation distances from potential pollution sources.
• Locate the well on ground higher than surrounding pollution sources.
• Avoid locating the well in flood zones.
• Make sure that the well is accessible for pump repair, cleaning, testing, and inspection.
• Hire a competent well driller and pump installer.

Unused wells. If you have an unused well on your property, you need to shut it down. Unused wells can provide a direct path for surface water carrying pollutants to groundwater. Be willing to hire a licensed, registered well driller or pump installer to close your unused well.

A brochure containing BMPs for wellhead protection is available from your local Cooperative Extension Office.
(R. L. Mahler)

FACTS ABOUT WATER
Each of us has a role in keeping water safe to drink. Take action to conserve and protect our water resources every day. To help you learn more about water, here are some basic facts:

• There are more than 200,000 individual water systems providing water to the public in the United States.
• Public water suppliers process 34 billion gallons of water per day for domestic and public use.
• Approximately 1 million miles of pipelines and aqueducts carry water in the United States and Canada. That's enough to circle the earth 40 times.

Comments to webmistress: karenl@uidaho.edu

All contents copyright © 1997-2003.
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho.
All rights reserved.

Revised: January 3, 2003

URL: http://www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqu/wqu44.html