A HISTORY OF LOCALLY-LED CONSERVATION

Development and Progress in the Northeastern Malheur Groundwater Management Area

1. Writing the "Plan"

The ODEQ appointed a citizen's committee in 1989. In writing the local groundwater management Plan, the committee defined various environmental issues of concern, even beyond ODEQ's priorities including other water issues, invasive weeds, and more. Some of the environmental concerns predate ODEQ's groundwater initiative by a local Malheur County citizen's committee (1978-1981). The early local county committee published their findings but never garnered state support.

The ODEQ appointed citizen's committee was unhappy with ODEQ's writing of various parts of the Plan in the name of the committee during 1990 and 1991. The draft Plan was rejected 5 times by the citizen's committee. The worst sticking points were criteria for success (that were scientifically infeasible in a few years) that if unmet would allow ODEQ to assume command and control of irrigation and nutrient use in the region.

Short term rapid groundwater improvements were not feasible. Infeasibility was due to the slow movement of groundwater to the river, substantial nitrate in the vadose zone (the depth between the plants root zone and groundwater), and the lack of proven available options to 1980's practices. The repeated Plan rejections were reflected in a revolving ODEQ employee representation in the management area. The 6th version was only accepted by the committee because wording submitted by the committee to ODEQ was included in the Plan. The wording of the 6th version finally provided an additional description for "plan success" - grower adoption of new practices that would lead to groundwater improvements. The option of voluntary adoption provided key incentives for change.

Several inadvisable parts and likely inaccurate parts of the groundwater management plan were retained by ODEQ despite of coherent community objections (Appendix, Part 1).

2. Continuity of the committee 

Shortly after the plan was adopted, ODEQ showed no further interest in meeting with the citizen's committee or local leaders. An open topic of discussion was why are we meeting when ODEQ no longer is involved. We decided to continue meeting regularly anyway and work on our problems.

At the OSU Malheur Experiment Station, we energetically sought and received research support to help us understand and address our irrigation efficiency and nutrient management problems. After a couple of years, the citizens who remained active reformed ourselves into a Malheur County appointed "Water Resources Committee." Years later following the formation of the Oregon Water Resources "OWEB", we reorganized ourselves again as the Malheur-Owyhee Watershed Council.

All these activities were closely coordinated through the Malheur County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) until about 2012. The Malheur-Owyhee Watershed Council eventually became both a Malheur Watershed Council and an Owyhee Watershed Council. The Owyhee Watershed Council was constructively born out of increased interest by ranchers in the Owyhee watershed that had been generated by a highly successful Malheur-Owyhee Watershed Council project along the Owyhee River. Division through complementary growth. Both councils generated successful subgroups, one of which The Lower Willowcreek Working Group where Jerry Erstrom was honored with a 2011 World Irrigation and Drainage recognition. The other subgroup that is under the Owyhee Watershed Council is the Jordan Valley Cooperative Weed Management Area which also continues to function with great effectiveness.

3. Approach to innovation and philosophy of change.

 We sought solutions to contamination problems that would be cost effective. How could crops be fertilized and irrigated so that yields and/or crop quality be improved using lower levels of water and nutrient input? Could more different weed control options be found to more selectively control weeds, lower input costs, and reduce groundwater contamination? Could grower options to protect groundwater be found that also increased profitability? Better profitability would greatly facilitate adoption.

4. Broad participation and support.
Groups involved to the research and outreach included the Malheur County Soil and Water Conservation District, the OSU Malheur County Extension, the OSU Malheur Experiment Station, the Malheur County Water Resources Committee, the Malheur-Owyhee Watershed Council, Western Laboratories of Parma Idaho, the Irrometer Company of Riverside California, the Malheur Onion Growers, the Idaho Eastern Oregon Onion Growers, the Nyssa-Nampa Sugar Beet Growers Association, the Oregon Potato Commission, the Oregon Wheat Commission, ODEQ, USEPA, and Clearwater Supply (a drip irrigation dealer).

5.      Dedicated participants

From the very first onset of the ODEQ groundwater committee in 1989 until their deaths or retirements included Lynn Jensen (OSU, Ontario) and growers Jim Nakano, Jerry Erstrom, and Dale Luther. They are all now deceased Other key people along the way for various lengths of time included Barry Fujishin, Reid Saito (Onion growers), Yasu Teramura (grower), Ron Jones (SWCD and ODA), many other growers, Kathy Pratt (MOWC), Jim Klauzer (Clearwater Supply, drip irrigation), Kelly Weideman (MOWC then MWC), Linda Rowe, Gary Faw (both of the SWCD), Erik Feibert (OSU, Ontario), Robert Sanders (local, then Oregon Potato Commission, Portland), Al Mosley (OSU, Corvallis), Dale Westerman (ARS, Kimberly, ID), John Taberna (Western Labs, Parma, ID), and Al Hawkins (Irrometer Company, Riverside, CA). They have had very different constructive roles.

6.      Conditions at the onset of the groundwater management area.
Through 1990, much of the fertilizer applications were based on blanket fertilizer doses for a particular crop, rather than a prescription based on soil analyses. Many of the blanket doses in 1990 were excessive and too much fertilizer N was applied in the fall when no crop was present in the field to take up nutrients. Sound crop rotations were typically followed. Our research showed that through a crop rotation of 4 to 5 crops, vastly more fertilizer N was applied than what was recovered in the sequence of harvested crops. The nitrogen balance on onions between N applied and N recovered in the harvested crop was especially negative.
Typically, much of the fertilizer for the next year was applied in the fall preceding the crop year. Fall applications subjected the nitrogen to loss by leaching or movement toward the soil surface in dry winters. Following fall applied N fertilizer, nutrient movement toward the soil surface often resulted in plant stand loss during the subsequent spring.
The predominate use of surface flood irrigation pushed soil nitrate deep into the soil profile, which Lynn Jensen and I found was especially problematic for onions. We restrained ourselves in limiting our reporting until we had a viable option for growers. I initiated studies of the fate of N in the soil comparing furrow, drip, and sprinkler irrigation. Specifically, how we could increase onion yield and quality while reducing N inputs and confining N movement through the soil profile.

7.      Principal changes that made big differences

a. Fall fertilizer applications were dramatically decreased, basically through outreach, reasoning with growers about their self-interests.

b.      Research that described the precise soil moisture requirements for onions allowed us to discover how to increase bulb yields and quality while using less water.
Careful management of precise drip irrigation eliminated most water movement and nutrient leaching below the root zone. OSU results were published and presented. Growers started implementing results.

c.      The increased use of split fertilization through side-dressing during crop growth increased N fertilizer use efficiency. The adoption of drip irrigation to replace surface flood irrigation allowed the possibility of spoon-feeding nutrients to crops as the nutrients were needed, vastly reducing nutrient applications. Tissue and soil testing with rapid receipt of data allowed a grower to make accurate fertilizations with the actual limiting nutrients, thereby reducing waste and expense. Much of the N fertilizations were shown to be unnecessary. OSU results were published and presented. Growers started implementing results.
Western Labs in Parma Idaho provided rapid turnaround of tissue and soil data allowing real time nutrient management of onions, potatoes, sugar beets, and other crops.

d.      Deep rooted crops such as corn, wheat, and sugar beets in the crop rotation were proven to efficiently recover nutrients that had escaped the root zone of shallow rooted crops such as onions and potatoes. Deep-rooted crops recovered nitrate that otherwise would be lost. Tissue testing of the deep-rooted crops allowed financial savings by avoiding or reducing fertilizations through the entire crop rotation. OSU results were published and presented. Growers started implementing results.

e.      Excessive nitrogen supply to sugar beets was found to result in excessive nitrate and ammonium in the beets. These excesses in turn reduced sugar extraction from the beets and recovery in the factory. The excessive N supply to the beets can come from both fertilizer, residual supplies in the soil, and nitrogen mineralization of organic matter in the soil. OSU results were published and presented. Growers started implementing results.

f.        Substantial N is mineralized from the soils in the Treasure Valley when the soil warms in the summer. Taking mineralized N into account substantially reduced the crop needs from N fertilization, providing cost savings. Substantial N mineralization is unusual and was a surprising OSU research outcome for the Treasure Valley. The N mineralized was apparent in the weekly soil test results. Many of the repeated spoon-fed N applications that would routinely be applied later in summer proved to be unnecessary.

g.      We showed that where well water containing substantial nitrate is used for irrigation. Nitrate in well water can supply much or all of a crop's N fertilizer needs.

h.      DCPA sold as the herbicide Dacthal degrades into long lasting residuals and the residuals contaminate groundwater. Our research showed that the replacement of DCPA with less costly, more effective, and less persistent herbicides provided growers with win-win options (Appendix 2). DCPA residuals in the groundwater have been vastly reduced.

Appendix

1. ODEQ writing of the plan erected Impediments to cooperative community consensus and actions included ODEQ's incorporation of unsupported assertions in the citizen's management plan beyond the unrealistic assumptions of the feasibility rapid groundwater nitrate improvements.

ODEQ insisted that the region had been underlain by a singular pristine aquifer, while well records showed a high probability that shallow aquifers had formed in response to agricultural water application. Well records showed that the Malheur, Owyhee, and Snake Rivers were "losing rivers" across the groundwater management meaning that groundwater elevations were lower the further one was from the river, forcing early settlers to live adjacent to the rivers.

Furthermore, ODEQ insisted that the groundwater arsenate contamination was due to grower application of lead arsenate to orchard crops, for which there was no evidence, while the probable cause was legacy arsenate from geologic recent volcanic eruptions and depositions.

Historically the Lower Treasure Valley had high frost risk and the areas with the greatest arsenate were highly inappropriate for establishing orchards. Orchards were located elsewhere.

Realistic discussions among the committee revealed numerous concerns. The citizens committee wanted to make progress on several problems that were not the focus of the groundwater management plan. ODEQ removed the concerns about the groundwater contamination of DCPA residues. DCPA was sold as Dacthal and used for weed control on onions at that time. Citizen committee concerns included irrigation induced erosion delivering sediment and nutrients to runoff, invasive weeds, and expansion of Junipers in rangelands.

2. Solving groundwater contamination by DCPA residues.

Problem: Groundwater in northeastern Malheur County had become contaminated with DCPA residues from the herbicide Dacthal used to control weeds for onion production. Place and time: Malheur County, Oregon 1985-2001.

Visualized solution: Find herbicides for onion production that are effective, less costly, and don't leave residues that can pollute groundwater or contaminate the crop.

Testing or demonstrations: Weed control options were evaluated using less expensive products that could provide effective weed control. The herbicides Buctril, Goal, Prowl, and selective grass herbicides provided excellent weed control. When applied carefully, these herbicides did not damage the onions. The movement of Dacthal residues was measured in runoff and leachate.

Outcomes: Growers adopted the alternative products for weed control in onion because the products were effective and reduced the cost of production. Growers voluntarily dropped the use of Dacthal. Production costs to growers declined. Dacthal residues in northeastern Malheur County groundwater have subsequently declined by over two thirds.

Collaboration: growers, chemical companies, Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, EPA, OSU Malheur Experiment Station, OSU Malheur County Extension, weed scientists at other locations in Idaho and Oregon.

Written by Clint Shock