1. A Case for Drought Management Planning Mark H. Masters Georgia Water Planning & Policy Center Albany State University

2. Growth in Irrigation

3. $31.18/inch $33.58/inch $57.31/inch Caution: This is an average and irrigation is NOT a linear function

4. Milestones in Management  Began issuing withdrawal permits for agricultural uses of more than 100K gpd in 1988

5. EPD Issues & Manages Agricultural Water Withdrawal Permits Required since 1988 Specifies location of withdrawal Types GW – Wells SW – Streams, ponds, reservoirs Well to Pond Irrigated field location NOT specified Change location and area each year Maximum irrigated area listed Withdrawal quantity NOT specified Change days of irrigation each year Maximum pumping rate listed 15,600 wells (blue) - Floridan and other aquifers 16,700 pumps (green) - farm ponds and streams * fall, 2008; includes current applications

6. Milestones in Management  Began issuing withdrawal permits for agricultural uses of more than 100K gpd in 1988  Moratorium placed on new permits in SWGA (1999)  Passed Flint River Drought Protection Act in 2000 – in response to projected low flows  Passed Agricultural Water Use Program 2003 (metering) – establish individual reasonable use and increase knowledge for planning

7. SWCC Installs & Manages Agricultural Water Use Meters  Required effective July, 2009 Started installation 2004  SWCC manages installation Grandfather permits – SWCC installs > 2003 permits – owner responsible  Field Locations Mapped Specific area and meter location Wetted area  Records water applied to field, not necessarily water withdrawn from source GW – Wells SW – Streams, ponds, reservoirs Well to Pond  Georgia Forestry Commission Visits fields annually Records amount applied (acre-in)

8. Milestones in Management  Began issuing withdrawal permits for agricultural uses of more than 100K gpd in 1988  Moratorium placed on new permits in SWGA (1999)  Passed Flint River Drought Protection Act in 2000 – in response to projected low flows  Passed Agricultural Water Use Program 2003 (metering) – establish individual reasonable use and increase knowledge for planning  Passed Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act 2004  Lower Flint River Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan – permit moratorium

9.  Plan developed starting in 1999 “in response to a prolonged drought, increased agricultural irrigation since the 1970’s and scientific studies that predicted severe impacts on streamflow in the Flint River Basin due to withdrawals from streams and the Floridan aquifer.”  Stakeholder involvement with technical support  Recommendations from Flint Plan focused exclusively on irrigation and farm-use permits  Flint Plan involved scientific assessment of water resources and led to adoption of new water resource management practices  Conservation measures  Revised permitting in critical areas

10. Flint River Drought Protection Act  An auction based program designed to temporarily remove irrigated acreage form production in order to protect streamflow  Predicated on drought declaration from EPD Director in consultation with State Climatologist (March 1)  Inaugural auction held March 15, 2001  33,101 acres retired from irrigated production  Average bid: $136/acre  $4.5 million paid to growers  Auction held again in 2002  40,894 acres retired  Average bid: $128/acre  $5.2 million paid to growers  Major changes for Act after Flint River Water Dev. and Conservation Plan passed March 2006

11. Flint River Drought Protection Act  Designation of different “use” areas  Ground water now eligible for participation  Act may be targeted on smaller watersheds  “Partial” buyout of an agricultural permit  Involuntary suspension provisions

12. Drought Declaration Deadline Mid-Season Management?

13. Challenges/Opportunities  Tri-State Water Conflict  Litigation  Negotiation

14. Challenges/Opportunities  Tri-State Water Conflict  Litigation  Negotiation  US Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat  Low flow criteria?

17. Challenges/Opportunities  Tri-State Water Conflict  Litigation  Negotiation  US Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat  Low flow criteria?  Regional Water Planning  Consumptive Use Assessments  Gap Analysis  Management Options

18. Model desired streamflow and use impacts at various planning nodes Identify gaps if any Management options to close gaps and allow for future use

19. So what might ag management options look like?  Flint River Drought Protection Act  Emergency Powers  Conservation  Irrigation scheduling, precision application strategies, conservation tillage, etc….  Permit Modification and/or Revocation  Statute Changes  Demand Management = Exposure to Individuals…To What End?  Need Information…the Sooner the Better

20. Mark H. Masters Albany State University Flint River Water Policy Center mmasters@h2opolicycenter.org 229-430-2900 x36

21. Lower Flint-Ochlockonee Planning District  14 Counties  All or part of 13 HUC 8 Watersheds  Ag irrigation is predominant use of water  658,561 acres  Endangered species and critical habitat  GA – FLA – AL

22. Farm Gate Value Lower Flint = $1.820 billion GA = $11.5 billion

23. Farm Gate Value Row - ForageVegetables% Irrig Rel % Ag Tax Baker$86,979,602$38,298,500$103,63053.3%68.0% Calhoun$75,711,348$31,795,329$061.2%43.5% Colquitt$389,231,209$50,013,893$108,046,59263.5%15.6% Decatur$206,547,141$50,814,251$79,234,86670.7%20.2% Dougherty$52,715,118$9,856,438$15957.8%20.0% Early$88,973,708$55,507,969$058.6%21.4% Grady$143,369,003$16,910,334$4,565,77918.1%28.7% Lee$59,348,004$28,627,451$629,97050.7%19.1% Miller$78,691,597$48,734,639$5,193,56568.2%42.1% Mitchell$266,507,069$57,949,822$35,137,43754.2%36.0% Seminole$79,961,262$48,351,178$7,709,92364.8%28.7% Terrell$61,448,617$35,020,050$343,08051.9%43.8% Thomas$105,775,140$31,006,949$4,435,98638.3%25.6% Worth$122,447,414$56,327,671$20,215,76563.0%38.4%

24. IMPLAN Results Output (1.25)Employment (1.23) DirectTotalDirectTotal Ich – 20%-$20,942,298-$26,248,678-282-348 Ich – 30%-$40,106,216-$50,309,324-509-632 Ich – 40%-$56,503,004-$70,879,641-710-886 Output (1.43)Employment (1.49) DirectTotalDirectTotal Spr – 20%-$22,745,048-$32,536,097-236-351 Spr – 30%-$55,756,953-$78,949,839-738-1,001 Spr – 40%-$78,573,824-$111,457,973-1,032-1,408 Multiplier

25. 100%66%33%Non-irr Gross Revenue ($0.70)$1066.10$889.70$544.60$313.60 Variable Cost$556.81$535.39$484.98$381.91 Irrigation Cost$88.00$58.96$29.04 Total VAR. Cost$644.81$594.35$514.02$381.91 NET > VAR$421.29$295.35$30.58-$68.10 Land($175 irrig - $60/dry) $175.00 $60.00 NET>VAR & Land$246.29$120.35-$144.42-$128.10 CY 2007 Cotton Revenues & Costs CY 2007 Cotton Revenues & Costs Not including returns to management, fixed assets, and overhead.

26. 100%66%33%Non-irr Gross Revenue ($0.70)$970.00$630.00$330.00$85.00 Variable Cost$429.97$418.25$388.13$234.18 Irrigation Cost$108.00$72.36$35.64 Total VAR. Cost$537.97$490.61$423.77$234.18 NET > VAR$432.03$139.39-$93.77-$149.18 Land($175 irrig - $60/dry) $175.00 $60.00 NET>VAR & Land$257.03-$35.61-$268.77-$209.18 CY 2007 Corn Revenues & Costs CY 2007 Corn Revenues & Costs Not including returns to management, fixed assets, and overhead.

27. 100%66%33%Non-irr Gross Revenue ($450/ton) $1135.58$937.80$603.90$248.63 Variable Cost$532.77$521.25$509.52$470.03 Irrigation Cost$77.50$51.93$25.58 Total VAR. Cost$610.27$573.18$535.10$440.03 NET > VAR$525.31$364.62$68.80-$191.40 Land($175 irrig - $60/dry) $175.00 $60.00 NET>VAR & Land$350.31$189.62-$106.20-$251.40 CY 2007 Peanut Revenues & Costs CY 2007 Peanut Revenues & Costs Not including returns to management, fixed assets, and overhead.

28. Miller County Total 65,705 Irrigated Acres Capacity Use 17,75727% Restricted Use21,15132% Consvn Use26,79741%

29. Miller County Total -- Within 3 Miles -- 59,370 Acres (90%) Capacity Use 10,35618% Restricted Use21,13435% Consvn Use27,88047%

30. Illustrative Purposes Only – Of the 10,356 acres within 3 miles of a stream and in Capacity Use Areas, 91% are “Grandfathered” Permits. It is extremely likely these areas could be impacted by a Flint River Drought Auction with economic impacts highly localized.