Key Learnings from the IrrigationNZ Study Tour to Nebraska

I was part of a 24-person group who went to Nebraska at the start of September 2018.  The tour was organised by IrrigationNZ and was an amazing opportunity to go and see how another part of the world deals with the same issues that we have here.  Below is an overview of my key learnings from the tour.  

Governance of Water

The governance of water in Nebraska is complex. There is Federal legislation, such as the

Endangered Species Act, which the state has to abide by. Alongside this there are also Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation that control most of the surface water through storage and diversion infrastructure. The state then sets its own laws around how it will manage its water.

In Nebraska the surface water is manged at state level by the Department of Natural Resources, but groundwater is managed by Natural Resource District’s (NRD) at a local level. For a number of surface water bodies, there are also interstate pacts that determine how much water must remain in the river to reach downstream states.

The NRD’s have a Board that is democratically elected, and are often dominated by rural people including farmers. Despite this, the farmer representatives have been proactive in driving practical change among their peers.  

The NRD system in Nebraska has been very successful in managing groundwater. All takes are controlled through a well permit system that allows for a given number of hectares to be irrigated per well.

Both of the NRD’s that we visited had invested heavily in science to help them better understand their resource. They also look for solutions as both a farm and catchment level, the latter including raising capital to build environmental infrastructure such as that required for augmentation projects.  

Conjunctive Management

‘Conjunctive management’ is a recent development in Nebraska that has largely come about through the management of ground and surface water takes in ‘conjunction’ to achieve interstate pacts. This has involved the NRD’s (the managers of the groundwater) working closely with irrigation districts and the Department of Natural Resources to ensure downstream flows are achieved.

This has included restriction of individual water takes (wells) – controlling any new ones, limiting the irrigated area from existing ones and in some cases placing a seasonal limit on usage. Alongside the implementation of environmental infrastructure such as Managed Aquifer Recharge and Stream Augmentation projects.

Managing Water Quality

Nitrates in groundwater are of significant concern in the heavily irrigated districts of central Nebraska. In some areas over 50% of the land is now under irrigated crop-farming. Historic poor nutrient management (type and timing) and poor irrigation practice resulted in nitrate concentrations being frequently observed over 30ppm – well over the US drinking water standard of 10ppm.

However, in recent years there has been a significant declining trend, with relatively few areas now exceeding 20ppm. This has largely been brought about by a non-regulatory approach.

State law requires the production of water quality and quantity management plans that identify the issues and then require the development of an implementation plan to address them. All the NRD’s have a rule framework, but most of the rules are currently focused on managing water takes and farming practice reporting. Incentives, knowledge and enabling peer to peer learning in combination with environmental infrastructure is currently seen as the way forward for water quality.

The widespread move from surface flood to centre pivot irrigation has been instrumental in reducing nitrate losses to groundwater. This has enabled soils to be irrigated on an ‘as and when’ basis to minimise nitrate leaching. There is now also a push towards the more widespread adoption of fertigation, as it allows ‘as and when’ nutrient applications – significantly reducing the risk of leaching from rainfall events.

Public perception

Despite the widespread use of intensive farming methods, and the water quality and quantity challenges facing Nebraska, the one issue currently not facing farmers at the state level is pressure from the anti-farming lobby or environmental groups.

Of the almost 2 million people living in Nebraska, the majority understand the role of crop farming and ranching in providing for their social-economic well-being. The Nebraskan economy is based on the irrigation of almost 4 million hectares of corn and soy beans and this is widely understood. 

The University of Nebraska research and extension service runs an outreach programme to attract the next generation to agriculture. This currently interacts with one in every three school age children in the state, providing an agriculture ‘101’ and highlighting the exciting career opportunities that exist within it.

Keri Johnston, Irricon

Natural Resources Engineer

Nutrient Budgets and Farm Environment Plan Auditing

If you live within Canterbury, there is a good chance you have been tied up in the nutrient saga that has come to life in recent years. The environment is a hot topic at the moment and promises not to slow down anytime soon.

A common word bandied around rural communities is Overseer or nutrient budgets (Overseer being the program used to create a nutrient budget). Overseer is constantly being updated to reflect changes in software and science developments.  As I write this, we are currently using Overseer v6.3.0.

In Canterbury, a farm is required to have a baseline nutrient budget which covers the years of 2009 – 2013, which in conjunction with Farm Environment Plans (FEP) often forms the basis for any Land Use Consent to Farm (farming consent) that may be required and a current season nutrient budget using actual farm input data for the most recent season.

Farming consents set a Nitrogen Discharge Allowance (NDA) for a farm, and this figure is not to be exceeded. Farming consents are a way for ECan to draw a line in the sand and monitor nitrogen losses from properties or irrigation schemes to determine how nitrogen losses are tracking. Any farming consent requires auditing of a Farm Environment Plan to be completed within 12 months of granting, then after depending on the grade received (A grade – 3 yearly for an individual farm or 4 yearly for an irrigation scheme, B grade – 2 yearly, C grade – within 12 months, D grade – within 6 months). These audits are carried out by independent (non ECan employed) FEP Auditors who have to audit to  guidelines and templates set by ECan.

Part of the FEP audit includes a section on nutrients, and has two objectives;

                1. To use nutrients efficiently and minimise nutrient losses to water; and

                2. Nutrient losses do not exceed permitted or consented nitrogen limits

For us as auditors to determine this, we must be able to compare ‘apples with apples’ in terms of nutrient budgets. This requires the baseline nutrient budget to have been updated into the most recent version of Overseer (currently v6.3.0) and the most recent season end nutrient budget to have been completed in that same version.

If we are unable to determine if the farm is operating within its NDA, we cannot grade objective 2 very highly which could mean the difference between an A or B grade or a non-complying grade (C or D).

Therefore to ensure your FEP audit grade is not impacted, make sure your baseline nutrient budget has been updated to the most recent version of Overseer, and that you also have a nutrient budget that reflects the most recent season on the farm.

By Ben Howden, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 021 242 0023 or email ben@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz

Winter Grazing

It always amazes me how quickly time flies – as I write this, we are in June of 2018 already and winter is upon us.

With the onset of winter comes the slowing (or stopping) of pasture growth and the need to supplement feed with crops or imported supplements, so it is timely to discuss winter feed management and the environmental perils associated with feeding winter crops and supplements.

It’s a hard road finding the perfect paddock to plant your crops in, if the soil is too heavy the chances of pugging and the loss of soil and faecal matter is higher and if the soil is too light, the drainage is great but with more drainage comes higher nitrogen leaching, particularly in areas of high rainfall.  Planning ahead and selecting the right paddock or even the right areas within a paddock to grow crops can reduce the environmental risk.

 

There is a lot of information about good practice for feeding winter crops available, but as for any farming practice there is no one size fits all and it is a matter of taking those good practices that apply to your situation and putting them in place.  The key issues with the intensive grazing of stock over winter are the loss of soil and faecal matter through run off into water ways and the leaching of nitrogen into groundwater from intensive stocking. 

Any management practices that can be implemented to reduce run off into waterways are beneficial, this can help to reduce the soil/ sediment and faecal contamination of waterways.  These include grass strips or margins not planted in crops alongside waterways and planning the direction of cultivation so that it doesn’t lead to a flow path into a waterway carrying contamination with it.

   

Planning ahead and having a back up option such as taking the animals off the crop, allowing animals access to another paddock or grazing for only a few hours can make all the difference when the weather is too wet for intensive grazing.  Troughs and supplementary feed can be placed strategically so that pugging is minimised in these areas and so that if there is pugging it won’t run off into a waterway.

Some regional plans include rules with regards to the wintering of stock including requirements for intensively grazed stock and stock on winter crops to be excluded from waterbodies.   There may also be rules around standoff areas and feedpads to minimise the environmental impact of these.  In my view these rules constitute the absolute minimum with regards to the good management of stock in winter. 

For information on industry good practice, see the Beef and Lamb website, Deer Industry NZ or the DairyNZ website, in particular the following link provides some useful information which can be applied to beef cattle and deer also -
https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5786508/wintering-on-crops-in-the-south-island.pdf

Post grazing, following the crop with a whole-crop cereal silage crop, before putting the block back into winter crop, can greatly reduce the nitrogen in the soil and therefore, leaching. 

So, with winter already here it is not too late to do some research and plan how you will manage your winter grazing this year.

Lilian Sherman, Irricon Resource Solutions Limited (NI).

Phone: (021) 378 308

E-mail: lilian@irricon.co.nz
www.irricon.co.nz

Regulatory Update

Below is a quick update on where things have gotten too from a regulatory perspective. 

Canterbury

2017 saw Environment Canterbury (ECan) introduce Good Management Practices (GMP) into its Land and Water Plan framework.  This is known as Plan Change 5.  Plan Change 5 also introduced the Waitaki specific nutrient management rules.  The decisions on the plan were appealed by a number of parties, particularly in relation to how the irrigation and fertiliser GMP’s were being treated in the Farm Portal (the online tool developed to determine exactly what GMP is at a farm level).  Appeals are still yet to be resolved, and therefore, it is likely to be mid-2018 before this plan is made operative.

Plan Change 2, which is specific to the Hinds Plains region, is also still under appeal, however, Plan Change 3, which is specific to the South Canterbury Coastal Streams area, had all its appeals resolved in November 2017, and is now fully operative.

ECan has also been doing a big push in the areas where a consent to farm is required, to encourage those who need one to go through the process.  There has been a good response to this (contrary to the opinion of Dr. Mike Joy) as the process is new to many, and requires professional help and a change in mindset for many. 

Otago

Otago’s nutrient management rules are now two years away from kicking in (the date is 1 April 2020).  Otago Regional Council has been encouraging farmers to get their Overseer done.  They have also taken the initiative in the more sensitive catchments such as the Kakanui, and have been providing resources and funding to assist with this.

 

Southland

Southland’s Land and Water Plan is nearing the completion of hearings.  Council gave its reply report and recommendations (a summary of all the information and submissions presented to the hearings panel, and answers to all questions from the panel during the hearing) in November 2017.  Watch this space.

Horizons

Horizons One Plan struck a major hurdle in early 2017, with the Environment Court deciding that the way in which the Council was implementing its plan was not what the plan actually said.  This has left the council with a plan that effectively doesn’t practically work as it was written, and wondering what to do now.  Implementing the plan as written creates a massive cost to farmers and other consent holders, and doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired water quality outcomes.  Given this, in August 2017, the council voted to investigate the possibility of a partial plan change.  However, this will not be a quick or easy process as it is both a legal and public process.

Hawkes Bay

Irrigators in the Tukituki catchment are left high and dry (literally) after the Ruataniwha Dam project is put on the shelf indefinitely.  The Tukutuki River minimum flow is still going up, and without the dam to augment and flush the river, the increase in minimum flow will mean the possibility of severe restrictions for irrigators in this catchment.  Effectively, the raise in minimum flow was coupled with the dam, but the impacts of de-coupling are now about to be realised.

Gisborne

Gisborne’s Freshwater Plan decision was released in August 2017, and was subsequently appealed.  The appeals are still to be worked through and there is no timeframe at this stage on when appeals are likely to be resolved.  Gisborne’s Freshwater Plan was actually pretty kind from a nutrient management perspective when compared to Canterbury for example.  There is no requirement for on farm limits using Overseer, and they have adopted a Farm Environment Plan approach to managing water quality.  However, it does have some issues with water quantity.  As horticulture, and kiwifruit in particular, look set to increase, those looking in the Gisborne area for plots to develop are soon realising that there is basically no water available for allocation unless you are prepared to take high flow water and store it.  Therefore, this is limiting the potential for the Gisborne region.

Overall

As well as all that is going on the regions, we have a new government who looks set to wind up funding irrigation scheme development, has already taken a stand on climate change, and will undoubtedly want to stamp its feet on the water issues.  2018 will be an interesting year…

By Keri Johnston, Irricon Resource Solutions

Phone 0272 202 425 or email keri@irricon.co.nz

www.irricon.co.nz