Groundwater Development Paths in the U.S. High Plains
Groundwater Development Paths in the U.S. High Plains
- Renata RimšaitėRenata RimšaitėDaugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska and National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- , and Nicholas BrozovićNicholas BrozovićDaugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska and Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Summary
The High Plains Aquifer is the largest aquifer in the United States and the major source of groundwater withdrawals in the region. Although regionally abundant, groundwater availability for agriculture and other uses is not uniform across the area. Three separate states comprising the most significant portion of the aquifer have distinct climate and hydrologic characteristics, water law systems, and institutional groundwater governance leading to different concerns about water policy issues across the area.
The northern, largest, and most saturated part of the High Plains Aquifer is located under Nebraska. The state has the largest irrigated area in the United States, most of which is groundwater irrigated. Nebraska is the home of the largest companies in the center pivot irrigation industry. Center pivot technology has had a fundamental role in expanding groundwater-fed irrigation. Nebraska is not free from groundwater depletion issues, but these issues are more important in central and south-central parts of the aquifer underlying large, primarily agricultural, lands of Kansas and Texas. The natural aquifer recharge is much lower in the south-central parts of the region, which has caused large groundwater extractions to have more significant water declines than in Nebraska.
In the United States, the greatest portion of water quantity management regulatory oversight is left to individual states and local government agencies. Each of the three states has a unique legal system, which highly influences the framework of groundwater management locally. In Nebraska, groundwater is governed following two doctrines: correlative and reasonable use, which, in times of water shortage, lead to a proportional reduction of everyone’s allocation. Kansas uses the prior appropriation doctrine to manage groundwater, which applies the seniority principle when there is scarcity in water availability, making junior water rights holders bear the greatest risk. The absolute ownership doctrine is used to govern groundwater in Texas, which allows landowners to drill wells on their property and extract as much water as needed.
Institutional groundwater governance in Nebraska is performed by the system of 23 locally elected Natural Resources Districts having full regulatory power to manage the state’s groundwater. The local governments use a variety of regulatory and incentive-based groundwater management tools to achieve local groundwater management goals. In Kansas, the Chief Engineer in the Kansas Department of Agriculture is in charge of water administration for the state. The Kansas legislature established five Groundwater Management Districts to address groundwater depletion issues, which can make policy recommendations but do not have the power to regulate. Groundwater Conservation Districts were created in Texas to provide protection from uncontrolled water mining in the state. The districts gained more power to regulate and enforce rules over time; however, significant groundwater depletion issues remain.
Multiple lessons have been learned across the region since the beginning of groundwater development. Some of these could be applied in other areas seeking to address negative consequences of groundwater use. Forward-looking perspectives about groundwater management in the region vary from strong government-led solutions in Nebraska to various producer-initiated innovative approaches in Kansas and Texas.
Keywords
Subjects
- Policy, Governance, and Law
- Management and Planning
Introduction
The High Plains Aquifer underlies the north- and south-central areas of the United States. It is the largest aquifer in the United States and the major source of groundwater withdrawals in the region.1 These withdrawals are used almost entirely for agricultural purposes. Communities are concerned about aquifer depletion for multiple reasons. Multigenerational family farms worry about the future viability of irrigated agriculture given trends of increasingly frequent dry weather events. Other water users depending on sustainable groundwater in the region include municipalities and environmental ecosystems. Expected population growth and climate change impacts are likely to exacerbate growing demands, making conflict among them occur more frequently.
Groundwater development paths in this article are defined as the sequence of historical decisions made, based on changes in knowledge about relevant physical and institutional contexts and needs.2 Since the beginning of groundwater development in the High Plains region, much scientific and institutional knowledge has been acquired and applied. This includes research on hydrogeology and in particular the interconnectedness of surface water and groundwater, as well as growing understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of groundwater overextraction. Key roles in groundwater management in the area have been played by advancements in irrigation technology, agricultural practices, and changes in water governance. A better understanding of groundwater development pathways in the High Plains region could help improve existing local policies and inform new ones, both within the High Plains and globally.
Pathways to groundwater development in the U.S. High Plains have been shaped by high spatial heterogeneity across the region. As a result, groundwater management decisions have been influenced by many distinct climatic and hydrologic characteristics and differences in developed and defined water laws and institutions. In some cases, these differences have led to long-term successes in achieving local groundwater management goals. In other cases, groundwater challenges have been exacerbated by the framing of water laws and institutions. Localization of policy in the region, in part due to the framework of water law in the United States, challenges researchers and practitioners alike. Nevertheless, a common result emerging from regional synthesis is the importance of effective water governance. Although this can be achieved using a variety of institutions and mechanisms, effective governance is needed for maintaining good practices and adapting to changes when needed, as well as for the ability to attempt novel water management approaches.
The High Plains Aquifer can be split geographically into northern, central, and southern parts. These parts mostly correspond to the areas of the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas, respectively. This article describes groundwater development in the High Plains Aquifer region of the United States using a framework that takes into account significant state- and local-level differences in hydrologic and climate characteristics, water law systems, and institutional groundwater management approaches to solving water policy issues most concerning local water users.
This article begins with a summary of regional trends in the development of groundwater use, with a focus on agricultural use of water and irrigation system development. Subsequently, the article discusses hydrologic and climate variability across the entire region and within each of the three states. Then it examines historical and forward-looking perspectives about groundwater management in Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas while considering groundwater law frameworks and unique water institutions. The article also summarizes some of the leading local water issues, which are illustrated with descriptions of both government-led and producer-initiated innovative approaches to finding long-term solutions to these issues.
Regional Context
Groundwater-Fed Irrigation Development in the High Plains
The development of groundwater-fed irrigation played a significant role in scaling up agricultural production and changing agricultural land and water management practices in the High Plains region. The ability to irrigate crops with groundwater provided flexibility to farmers. They were able to reduce drought-imposed risk without having to depend on access to surface water and its availability.
Farmers began using groundwater for irrigation in the 1930s and 1940s (McGuire, 2014). This period coincided with the era of extremely severe droughts often referred to as “the Dust Bowl.” The aftermath of these droughts inspired the creation of a variety of tools designed to aid affected farmers. Later advances occurred with the development of advanced irrigation technologies (McLeman et al., 2014). First, World War II–era engines were used to make pumps more powerful and capable of extracting large volumes of groundwater into open furrows (Hornbeck & Keskin, 2014). In the early 1950s, center pivot irrigation technology was invented. Center pivots became the dominant irrigation technology in the High Plains region over the next few decades. For example, by 1959, in Nebraska, there were more acres irrigated with groundwater than surface water (Aiken, 1980). Extreme droughts experienced in the 1960s and the 1970s helped speed up the adoption process—farmers responded by drilling high-capacity wells and investing in center pivot irrigation systems (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Hornbeck & Keskin, 2014). Concerns about increasing energy prices led to the introduction of irrigation systems that could function with low pressurization. Even more recently, a variety of variable rate and precision irrigation technologies have been introduced to address ongoing concerns about efficiency, depleting aquifers, and declining well yields.
The ability to extract large volumes of water combined with minimal existing groundwater use regulations led to a rapid increase in groundwater withdrawals for agricultural use. Seemingly unlimited groundwater pumping allowed farmers to reduce the risks associated with severe drought events and scale up their crop production. Irrigating producers increased their yields and profits and added value to agricultural land. The irrigated agricultural land area overlying the High Plains Aquifer increased from 2.1 million acres (0.85 million hectares) in 1949 to 13.7 million acres (5.5 million hectares) in 1980 (McGuire, 2014).
Substantial groundwater pumping in the region soon exceeded the aquifer’s natural recharge and led to significant water-level declines in some parts of the aquifer. Recognized groundwater use sustainability issues created a desire for improved irrigation technology and management practices, as well as a stronger governmental oversight. Changes in groundwater management approaches began to occur at federal, state, and local levels (e.g., in 1987, continuously monitoring water levels in the High Plains Aquifer became a federal-level priority; McGuire, 2017).
The pumping-induced groundwater level decline was not uniform across the aquifer (Butler et al., 2013; McGuire, 2017). The southern and central High Plains have experienced much more significant declines than the northern High Plains. For example, in Nebraska, the groundwater level declined by 0.9 feet (0.3 meters) between 1950 and 2015. In Texas, during the same period, the average decline was 41 feet (12.5 meters; McGuire, 2017). These trends are expected to continue into the future (Haacker et al., 2016). For example, groundwater-fed irrigation in the southern part of the High Plains Aquifer underlying the Texas panhandle started before the 1930s (Closas & Molle, 2016). The number of wells has continuously increased since then, especially after more severe drought events and advances in irrigation technology. Significant reduction in well yields in the southern High Plains was noticed in the 1970s and 1980s; more wells needed to be drilled to provide the same volume of groundwater (Closas & Molle, 2016; Colaizzi et al., 2009). In Texas, gravity irrigation was the most popular irrigation method through the 1950s and 1960s until the 1980s. Sprinkler irrigation powered via center pivot systems started to gain popularity in the 1970s, reaching greater than 70% adoption by 2000 (Closas & Molle, 2016; Colaizzi et al., 2009).
Center pivot irrigation systems, invented in the northern High Plains region, quickly spread not only throughout the High Plains Aquifer region but also throughout the entire United States and globally. However, center pivots remain concentrated in Nebraska in the northern High Plains region. This corresponds to the portions of the aquifer with the most stored water and largest saturated thicknesses.
The center pivot irrigation system has changed significantly since its invention. The technology can now offer corner and geolateral pivots designed to reach irregularly shaped areas. Variable rate and zonal irrigation systems allow pivots to change speed and pressure at individual nozzles to allow for precision irrigation. Operating is also possible at much lower pressures than when center pivots were first introduced, reducing energy costs as well as water application. The latest innovations are moving toward pivots that operate autonomously, sensing crop water, fertilizer, and pesticide needs using on-board sensors.
Hydrologic Setting of the High Plains Aquifer
The High Plains Aquifer covers a 174,000 square mile (450,657 square kilometers) area, including portions of eight states: South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas (Ajaz et al., 2020; McGuire, 2017). Based on hydrogeologic variability across the aquifer, it can be split into three regions: northern, central, and southern. These portions have the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas representing the dominant land area, respectively (Figure 1; Ajaz et al., 2020; Dennehy et al., 2002; McGuire et al., 2012). These three states comprise the vast majority of groundwater-fed land in the High Plains. This article focuses on the history of groundwater development in Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas.
Since predevelopment (before 1950), spatial variability of water availability within the aquifer has grown significantly (Figure 2). By 2015, the decrease in saturated aquifer thickness varied from 10% in some regions to 50% in other parts of the aquifer. Total water in storage from predevelopment to 2015 declined by approximately 273.2 million acre-feet (337 billion cubic meters), reaching 2.91 billion acre-feet (3,589 billion cubic meters; McGuire, 2017). The average total area-weighted water level decline during the same period was 15.8 feet (4.8 meters), but the change in water level across the aquifer varied from a rise of 84 feet (25.6 meters) in Nebraska to a decline of 234 feet (71.3 meters) in Texas (McGuire, 2014, 2017). Averaging by state, the highest decline in water level has been in Texas and Kansas (declines of 41.1 and 26.2 feet [12.5 and 8.0 meters], respectively), which represent the southern and central regions of the aquifer; in Nebraska, the northern aquifer region, the decline has been only 0.9 feet (0.3 meters; McGuire, 2017).
Approximately 20% of the irrigated corn, wheat, and cotton produced in the United States is irrigated from the High Plains Aquifer (Ajaz et al., 2020). Water withdrawals from the aquifer have been mainly used for irrigated agriculture (21 million acre-feet [26 billion cubic meters] in 2000; McGuire, 2007). Irrigated acreage overlying the High Plains Aquifer has significantly increased from the late 1940s to the late 1980s, from approximately 2.1 million acres (0.85 million hectares) to 13.7 million acres (5.5 million hectares; McGuire, 2007). However, future climate projections indicate that irrigated land may need to be reduced by as much as 24% by 2100 within the aquifer boundaries (Ajaz et al., 2020; Deines et al., 2019) in response to changing climate and water availability.
State-Level Hydrologic Setting
Nebraska
The 100th meridian divides Nebraska in half and represents a convenient boundary in the regional climate gradient: Climate and hydrology differ significantly between the semi-arid western portion of the state and the more humid eastern half. In Nebraska, the average annual precipitation ranges from 12 inches (305 millimeters) in the northwestern part of the state to more than 30 inches (762 millimeters) in the southeast (Korus et al., 2013). The variability of precipitation affects irrigation needs for crops grown across the state. Whereas the rainfall in the eastern portion of the state is often sufficient to grow corn and soybeans, it is not the case in the semi-arid western part of the state, where irrigation is needed every growing season. Although the long-term precipitation average for Nebraska is 23.5 inches (597 millimeters), the temperature varies annually, especially when severe floods and droughts impact the state. For example, the statewide precipitation average in 2012 was less than 14 inches (356 millimeters). This was also the year of the highest temperature, which was 52.7°F (11.5°C) (4.1°F [2.3°C] higher than the long-term average). Generally, Nebraska has hot summers, with daytime high temperatures averaging between 85°F (29.4°C) and 90°F (32.2°C). Winters are cold, with lows averaging between 10°F (–12.2°C) and 20°F (–6.7°C).
Evapotranspiration also has high variability across the state. It increases moving west to east, as it depends on soil moisture, humidity, temperature, and wind due to the impacts of open water sources and land use and cover (Korus et al., 2013). Nebraska’s topography varies from large areas of sand dunes to dissected plains, rolling hills, and river valleys, which affects groundwater recharge, a significant factor in groundwater quantity change (Korus et al., 2013). For example, grass-covered sand dunes are especially good contributors to the aquifer recharge process (Ajaz et al., 2020). The land elevation in Nebraska varies from 5,424 feet (1,653 meters) in the west to 840 feet (256 meters) in the east (Bleed & Babbitt, 2015).
Nebraska overlies approximately 64,000 square miles (165,759 square kilometers) of the High Plains Aquifer, which is approximately 36% of the entire aquifer area (Young et al., 2022), and makes approximately 60% of the aquifer’s water volume (Korus et al., 2013). In addition to the High Plains Aquifer, which covers approximately 84% of Nebraska, the state contains portions of multiple other aquifers, including the Dakota, Paleovalley, and Niobrara Aquifers (Korus et al., 2013; Young et al., 2022). The saturated thickness of the Nebraska portion of the High Plains Aquifer averages approximately 600 feet (183 meters), but it varies greatly across the state, reaching 1,100 feet (335 meters) in some areas (e.g., Nebraska’s Sand Hills) and being as shallow as 100 feet (30.5 meters) in other places (e.g., northern Box Butte County; Korus et al., 2013).
According to the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Nebraska has more than 8.6 million irrigated acres (3.5 million hectares), accounting for almost 15% of all irrigated acres in the United States (Irrigation and Water Management Survey [IWMS], 2019). Most of these acres (~89%) are irrigated with groundwater (Dieter et al., 2018), putting severe pressure on groundwater levels and consequentially affecting streamflow. From predevelopment (before 1950) until 2015, the state-average drop in groundwater levels with the High Plains Aquifer was 0.9 feet (0.3 meters; McGuire, 2017). However, the change in groundwater level varied across the state, from significant declines of 60 feet (18.3 meters; e.g., Box Butte County in the northwest part of Nebraska) to increases of 70 feet (21.3 meters; (e.g., Gospel County in south-central Nebraska) (Korus et al., 2013). The rise in groundwater level is often the result of water seepage from surface water reservoirs and canal systems. However, changes in water policy and irrigation technology have also contributed to changes in groundwater tables.
Kansas
Like in Nebraska, the climate in Kansas varies from semi-arid in the western portion of the state to more humid in the east. A total of 15 inches (381 millimeters) of rainfall is common in the west, whereas the eastern part can receive more than 43 inches (1,092 millimeters) of precipitation. Average annual evapotranspiration decreases from southwest to northeast. During July and August, the maximum temperature varies between 85°F and 93°F (29.4°C and 33.9°C); lows between December and February average between 14°F and 27°F (–10°C and –2.8°C; Kansas Geological Survey, 2022). Land surface elevation ranges from 679 feet (207 meters) above mean sea level in the eastern portion to 4,039 feet (1,231 meters) above mean sea level in the western part (Kansas Geological Survey, 2022).
Kansas is an agricultural state, with approximately 2.5 million irrigated acres (1 million hectares) to grow corn, wheat, soybeans, alfalfa, and sorghum (Kenny & Juracek, 2013). The great majority (96%) of those acres are irrigated with groundwater (Dieter et al., 2018; Kenny & Juracek, 2013), almost all of which comes from the High Plains Aquifer that underlies south-central and western portions of Kansas.
Approximately 30,500 square miles (78,995 square kilometers; 18%) of the High Plains Aquifer area is in Kansas, underlaying 38% of the state (United States Geological Survey [USGS], n.d.). High Plains Aquifer saturated thickness since predevelopment to 2019–2021 in many areas of the state has decreased by 30–60% (Kansas Geological Survey, 2022). Saturated thickness varies from less than 50 feet (15.2 meters) in areas close to the aquifer boundaries (especially the northeast and central-east portions of the state) to more than 300 feet (91.4 meters) in southeast Kansas (e.g., Seward and Stevens Counties; Kansas Geological Survey, 2022). The Kansas portion of the High Plains Aquifer has declined by an average of 26.2 feet (8.0 meters) from predevelopment to 2015 (McGuire, 2017). However, there is a significant variation in groundwater level change. In the southwestern portion of the state, groundwater levels have declined by 50–80 feet (15.2–24.4 meters) since 1996, but in the south-central part, the decline has been limited to approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) (Kansas Geological Survey, 2022). Although the rate of decline has slowed (Sixt et al., 2019), the most significant drop continues to appear in southwest Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey, 2022). Overall, approximately 30% of groundwater in the Kansas portion of the High Plains Aquifer has been pumped, and another 39% is expected to be depleted by the mid-2060s given continuation of current practices (Steward et al., 2013). Declining trends are expected to continue through 2100 (Steward et al., 2013).
Texas
Average precipitation in Texas’s northwest or Panhandle portion (underlain by the High Plains Aquifer) varies from 15 to 25 inches (381 to 635 millimeters) moving west to east. This precipitation contributes very little to groundwater recharge. Evapotranspiration increases north to south within the Panhandle, but it usually exceeds precipitation, enhancing conditions for frequent drought development. The average annual temperature in the Panhandle portion of the state varies from 52°F to 58°F (11.1°C to 14.4°C; Texas Water Development Board, 2012).
Approximately 20% of the total High Plains Aquifer area (35,000 square miles [90,650 square kilometers]) is in northwest Texas, underlying approximately 13% of the state (USGS, n.d.). The saturated thickness of the aquifer in Texas ranges from more than 400 feet (121.9 meters) in the north (e.g., Roberts County) to less than 50 feet (15.2 meters) in multiple areas across the Panhandle (McGuire et al., 2012). From predevelopment to 2015, the average statewide decline in the aquifer was 41.1 feet (12.5 meters; McGuire, 2017). However, in multiples areas of the Panhandle (e.g., Moore and Sherman Counties in the north and from Parmer through Floyd Counties, south of the Canadian River), the water-level declines reached more than 150 feet (45.7 meters), reducing the saturated thickness by more than 50% since predevelopment (McGuire, 2017).
Most of the water withdrawals in Texas are used for agricultural production—to irrigate corn, wheat, cotton, and sorghum. Texas has more than 4 million irrigated acres (1.6 million hectares; IWMS, 2019), and most of these (~80%) are irrigated with groundwater (Dieter et al., 2018). The largest portion of those irrigated acres (~77%) are in the Panhandle, irrigated from the High Plains Aquifer (Sixt et al., 2019).
State-Level Legal Setting
In the United States, relatively few federal laws regulate water management. Most of these are dedicated to protecting water quality (i.e., the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act). The federal government sometimes gets involved in multistate water conflicts, creating legally binding interstate agreements (e.g., the Republican River Compact between Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas) and federal recovery programs. It also often provides different types of financial support (e.g., subsidies and cost-sharing) to state agencies and farmers seeking to adopt water-conserving technologies and practices. However, the greatest portion of water quantity management regulatory oversight is left to individual states and local government agencies.
Rights to water quantity in most of the eastern U.S. states (east of the Mississippi River) are governed following the riparian doctrine, which comes from the English common law influence. Under the riparian system, landowners are granted the right to reasonably use the water that can be accessed through the land that they own (Miller et al., 1997). Under the system, water usually cannot be transferred without transferring the land to which it is attached. In the states located west of the Mississippi River, including those underlain by the High Plains Aquifer, water rights are managed under the prior appropriation system. The system was originally developed by miners who did not have land ownership; hence, it allows separating water rights from land ownership. The prior appropriation system has three distinct principles: seniority (“first in time, first in right”), beneficial use, and “use it or lose it.” The seniority principle, in theory, and when enforced, determines who gets water in times of shortage, allowing most senior water rights holders to have the highest security by providing them the right to take an authorized quantity of water until the available supply is exhausted. In this system, most junior water rights holders bear the greatest risk during a water shortage because their turn to use their portion of the authorized water comes after senior water rights holders have already used their portions. To ensure that the water is used purposefully, the prior appropriation states’ water law requires that the water be put to specific beneficial uses, which often include domestic, municipal, irrigation, mining, recreation, and wildlife uses. The “use it or lose it” principle highlights that the water must be continuously used for a beneficial purpose; otherwise, the right to it will be lost, making the abandoned or forfeited water become available for new appropriation (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Hutchins, 1972).
Surface water management in several western states has been influenced by both systems, and some of the states (e.g., California and Texas) still employ both riparian and prior appropriation rights. The governance system for groundwater management, however, is more variable across the western United States. Whereas some states apply the prior appropriation system to both surface water and groundwater management, others use different or multiple systems, including the reasonable use doctrine, the correlative rights doctrine, or the absolute ownership doctrine. Unlike the prior appropriation system, systemic water shortages in the correlative doctrine are managed by reducing everyone’s allocation proportionately (Aiken, 1980). Water scarcity management under the reasonable use doctrine is more challenging because the rule allows landowners to use groundwater as long as the reasonable use of it benefits the overlying land and is not wasteful (Aiken, 1980; Water Systems Council, 2016). Although most states consider groundwater and surface water to be public property (i.e., water users do not own water; instead, they hold the right to use it and benefit from it), private ownership of the water underneath the land is considered the law in some places (e.g., the absolute ownership doctrine), making a legal setting for groundwater management highly variable and complex across the western and central United States (Johnson, 2009). This variability is found in groundwater management across the High Plains Aquifer. The largest parts of the northern, central, and southern parts of the aquifer are managed by the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas, respectively. Each of these states has a unique legal system, institutions, and management practices used in governing the aquifer’s water belonging to that state.
Nebraska
Nebraska’s water resources are public property; they belong to the state “for the benefit of its citizens” (Nebraska Revised Statutes, 2007). Since 1985, surface water in the state has been managed following the prior appropriation doctrine. The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources regulates and manages the state’s surface water, including concerns around water shortage and different uses such as irrigation, instream flows, power, and manufacturing (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
Since the implementation of the Groundwater Management Act (1975), groundwater in Nebraska has been governed using a combination of the correlative rights doctrine and the reasonable use doctrine. The systems had already been used in practice due to the doctrines’ earlier adoption in Nebraska courts (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Peck, 2007). The codified system of the correlative rights and reasonable use gave landowners the right to use groundwater on the overlaying land if its use was considered reasonable, based on recognized beneficial uses (e.g., domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, commercial, power production, sub-irrigation, fish and wildlife, groundwater recharge, interstate compact, water quality maintenance, or recreational). The correlative rights component is critical during times of water shortage, which is supposed to guarantee that landowners are not allowed to pump more than their fair share (Aiken, 1980; Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Johnson, 2009). The legal system allows groundwater rights to be separated from the overlying land and transferred for pumping through a well on a different land parcel as well as to other uses (Aiken, 1980). The codified legal system did not provide strong monitoring and enforcement mechanisms protecting against potential groundwater overextraction. However, through the Groundwater Management Act, this mechanism and regulatory power were transferred to 23 Natural Resources Districts—local government agencies responsible for governing groundwater resources in Nebraska since 1972 (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
Kansas
All water in Kansas is dedicated to being used by the state’s public, subject to the state’s regulatory oversight (Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes, n.d., 82a-702).Kansas follows the prior appropriation doctrine’s principles to manage surface water and groundwater, which has been the case since the Kansas Water Appropriation Act of 1945. Before 1945, groundwater was managed following the absolute ownership doctrine allowing landowners to capture as much water beneath their property as needed. The prior appropriation doctrine allows detaching water rights from the associated land right, making groundwater transfers possible in Kansas. The doctrine applied to groundwater implies that the most senior groundwater pumper has the lowest risk during water shortage due to the highest priority and that the lowest priority is assigned to the most junior pumper (Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). During the time of water shortage, the chief engineer has the mandate to enforce and administer water laws (Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes, n.d., 82a-706).
In 2012, the state challenged one of the principles associated with the prior appropriation doctrine. The “use it or lose it” law was repealed because it was determined that it encouraged water rights holders to overuse it instead of saving and reallocating it to other beneficial uses (Kuwayama et al., 2017). The seniority principle of the prior appropriation system was also challenged, but it was initiated via a bottom-up approach. In one of the Local Enhancement Management Areas, all irrigating producers agreed to lower their water use by 20% despite the differences in the seniority of their water rights (Schoengold & Brozović, 2018).
Texas
Texas has separate legal systems for groundwater and surface water management. Surface water belongs to the state, allowing water rights holders to have a usufructuary right (Texas Water Code—Water, 2021). The prior appropriation system for surface water management was adopted in 1895 as an addition to the riparian rights system that had already existed. The two systems continued to coexist until they were merged in 1967 with the Water Rights Adjudication Act into the prior appropriation system. However, the riparian system remains recognized in the state (Johnson, 2009; Kaiser, 1987). Surface water in the state is managed and administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Since 1904, groundwater in Texas has been managed following the absolute ownership doctrine, often called the “rule of capture” or the “law of the biggest pump.” The system recognizes the right to use groundwater as a private property right of a landowner allowing them to drill wells on their property and pump as much water as needed (Kaiser, 2005). The system allows severing water rights from the land and transferring them to another location (Lashmet, 2018). Although the legal rule discourages pumping in a wasteful manner and maliciously harming neighboring land, it does not prevent overpumping, largely due to the lack of monitoring and enforcement.
With the passage of the Texas Groundwater Act in 1949, Groundwater Conservation Districts were created to prevent groundwater depletion. Groundwater pumping rules are stricter within the districts because limits on groundwater withdrawals within the districts can be set based on the tract size or the spacing of the wells.
The legal setting for groundwater use in Texas has encouraged water management practices that need not be sustainable in the long term. This is particularly the case in the areas that do not have high recharge rates, such as the southern portion of the High Plains Aquifer located in the Texas Panhandle.
State-Level Water Institutions, Their History, and Their Management Approaches
Nebraska
The start of formal groundwater governance in Nebraska was marked by a severe drought in 1930. A few years later, in 1933, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that groundwater was not private property and that during a drought, the resource would need to be shared by competing groundwater uses (Aiken, 1987; Bleed & Babbitt, 2015). Subsequent advances in groundwater management were likewise inspired by challenging, severe drought events.
Large groundwater reserves underneath Nebraska’s land were discovered in the 1950s, which coincided with a multiyear drought (1952–1956) and with the start of the center pivot irrigation system development.3 Approximately 16,000 new irrigation wells were installed during the decade (Aiken, 1980). At that time, the state began taking proactive steps toward preventing groundwater depletion. In the 1950s, Nebraska’s legislature imposed well spacing requirements, began requiring well registration, created a preference system for groundwater use in times of shortage, and established Groundwater Conservation Districts to form conservation practices in areas where groundwater usage was concerning (Aiken, 1980).
Center pivot irrigation technology systems grew in popularity in the 1960s. At that time, new wells continued to be drilled (e.g., more than 12,000 during the 1960s). Irrigated acreage grew by 1.4 million acres (0.57 million hectares) during the decade (Aiken, 1980). In the 1970s, groundwater levels started declining significantly in some areas. This caused problems not just for local water managers and producers. In some cases, it escalated into environmental habitat protection issues, whereas in other cases, it turned into interstate disputes.
Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) were created when groundwater use for irrigation was growing rapidly. In 1969, the unicameral legislation enacted LB 1357. This required combining a large number of small and varied special-purpose districts into a smaller number of NRDs, a transition effected in 1972. The new system replaced the single-purpose district system, which included groundwater conservation districts and rural water districts that were distributed across Nebraska. These prior districts typically followed county lines and did not reflect the underlying hydrology or ongoing patterns of natural resources development (Aiken, 1980; Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
The system of 23 NRDs covers the entire state of Nebraska, with boundaries for each district being based on the eight major river basins comprising the state (Blue River Basin, Lower Platter River Basin, Missouri River Tributaries Basin, Nemaha River Basin, Niobrara River Basin, Republican River Basin, Upper Platte River Basin, and White River–Hat Creek Basin). NRDs are governed by locally elected boards of directors and are authorized to implement regulations and enforce them. Local-level governance by an authority often represented by farmers themselves provided an opportunity to focus on the most pressing agricultural issues concerning local areas (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
In addition to the state mandate to manage local groundwater and support state-wide surface water conservation, the districts have 11 other responsibilities, including flood and erosion prevention; soil conservation; pollution control; and management of forests, rangeland, fish, and wildlife (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013). All districts are primarily funded through local property taxes. Some also charge occupation taxes, which are payments on irrigated acres (Kuwayama et al., 2017; Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). Other funding is often received from state and federal agencies and organizations such as the Nebraska Resources Development Fund and the Nebraska Environmental Trust to work on various collaborative projects (e.g., the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program).
NRDs employ various regulatory and incentive-based water management tools to stay accountable for the impacts of groundwater pumping and prevent long-term groundwater depletion. The variety and complexity of these tools vary among NRDs based on hydrogeological and climatic characteristics affecting different areas of Nebraska. Many districts require irrigation flowmeters, mandate groundwater use reports, and have imposed moratoria on new groundwater wells and new irrigated acres. Currently, 18 out of 23 districts enforce a groundwater allocation system or are ready to enforce it if certain groundwater depletion levels are reached.4 The allocation system is designed to limit groundwater pumping to a specified volume over a specified multiyear period (e.g., 60 inches [1,524 millimeters] over a 5-year period in the Middle Republican NRD; Rimsaite et al., 2021). Some of the flexible tools available to irrigating growers to help manage their production during a drought include banking of unused allocation water to use it in the following allocation period and groundwater transfers. In the case of groundwater transfers, farmers are allowed to reallocate groundwater based on the specified rules in each NRD’s regulatory documents.
NRDs collaborate with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, responsible for surface water management in the state, to manage hydrologically connected groundwater and surface water. Both institutions work together to develop integrated water management plans and basin-wide plans, a requirement passed in LB 962 in 2004 by Nebraska’s unicameral legislature (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
In addition to groundwater quantity management, NRDs are responsible for managing non-point source pollution in groundwater.5 The major polluter in the agricultural state is nitrate nitrogen. Nitrate levels greater than 10 parts per million indicate a significant contamination level with potential long-term human health impacts. Contamination occurred over several decades of extensive fertilizer and pesticide use (Bleed & Babbitt, 2015). Although water quality issues often are not primary concerns associated with depleting aquifers, groundwater overextraction can exacerbate the degradation of water quality by concentrating pollutants in the remaining portion of an aquifer (Kuwayama et al., 2017).
Kansas
Groundwater governance in Kansas changed in 1945 with the adoption of the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. This act repealed the previously dominant absolute ownership doctrine. Since 1945, to use groundwater for irrigation, people have been required to obtain a permit from the Kansas Chief Engineer. This is an individual in charge of water administration within the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Peck, 2007). Despite the additional steps needed to use large volumes of groundwater put in place in 1945, over the next few decades groundwater pumping in Kansas grew quickly, with a similar rapid increase in the number of wells drilled and acres irrigated. As in Nebraska, groundwater-fed irrigation growth was amplified by severe droughts that increasing the demand for irrigation and also by the introduction of center pivot irrigation technology. However, the High Plains Aquifer, the single primary source of groundwater in Kansas, underlaying the northern and south-central portions of the state, had much lower saturated thickness and poorer groundwater recharge than it did in the Nebraska region. Thus, it has resulted in significantly more severe groundwater mining issues in Kansas than in Nebraska.
In 1972, to address groundwater depletion issues, the Kansas legislature established five Groundwater Management Districts(GMDs) located in the western and middle regions of the state, mostly underlain by the High Plains Aquifer. The districts were created to manage groundwater at a local level to help advance water conservation efforts. Unlike the NRDs in Nebraska, the GMDs did not have the power to create regulations for water management and enforce them. Instead, their role was to assist in aquifer sustainability efforts by making recommendations (e.g., well spacing, aquifer withdrawal policy; Peck, 2007) to the Chief Engineer, who had the option to adopt the recommended changes.
The Kansas Groundwater Management District Act amendments enacted in 1978 initiated the creation of Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas (IGUCAs). These amendments gave the Chief Engineer the power to designate IGUCAs if, after a public hearing, the local area is determined to have significantly critical groundwater policy concerns, such as excessive groundwater decline levels. The Chief Engineer has the authority to implement additional groundwater use controls in the designated areas. Controls could include groundwater use reductions based on water right seniority and well moratoria (Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2016a; Kuwayama et al., 2017; Peck, 2007). However, IGUCAs are an incomplete policy tool because there are more problematic areas with rapidly depleting groundwater tables than IGUCAs in Kansas.
The identified policy gap provided an opportunity for irrigating producers concerned about long-term resource conservation to organize and create several bottom-up groundwater management initiatives. Since 2012, groundwater users have been allowed to develop Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs). Once established, a LEMA legally obliges all landowners to follow the determined regulatory requirements (e.g., reduce pumping by 20%; Kuwayama et al., 2017; Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). Since then, more producer-led water conservation initiatives have been established (e.g., Water Conservation Areas and Water Technology Farms).
The Division of Water Resources regularly inspects fields to ensure no violation of water rights usage. Flowmeters must be installed on all irrigation wells, and water users are required to submit water use reports annually (Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2016d; Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). Violation of the Water Appropriations Act is subject to a fine and jail time for up to 6 months (Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2016d).
Texas
Concerns about groundwater-level depletion in the southern High Plains Aquifer located in the Texas Panhandle region were raised before the mid-1930s (Closas & Mole, 2016). Excessive groundwater use permitted to all landowners by the absolute ownership doctrine did not provide any incentives to conserve the resource. The creation of Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs) in Texas via the 1949 Groundwater Conservation District Act was an attempt to provide some level of protection from continuing uncontrolled groundwater mining by changing certain practices and regulations, such as requiring larger distances between wells (Lesikar et al., 2002). However, with the multiyear drought (1950–1957; Closas & Molle, 2016) and the development of groundwater-fed irrigation systems, excessive groundwater use across the High Plains Aquifer continued to grow, causing significant declines in water tables (Hornbeck & Keskin, 2014). For example, the first GCD, the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District, active since 1951, has experienced the greatest percentage drops in groundwater table levels across the High Plains Aquifer (Haacker et al., 2016).
The regulatory power of GCDs has increased over time, often following severe multiyear drought events. For example, after the 1995–1996 drought, the Texas legislature gave GCDs the power to require permits for groundwater extraction and impose more substantial restrictions to qualify for those permits and more well-spacing regulations. In the early 2000s, GCD boundaries, originally created to follow county lines, started to resemble hydrogeologic boundaries of major aquifers. GCDs gained more power to regulate and enforce well spacing; levy annual taxes; and create rules for buying, selling, and reallocating water, including transfers outside the district. GCDs requiring immediate attention were transformed into Priority Groundwater Management Areas (Closas & Molle, 2016; Texas Water Development Board, n.d.).
Currently, there are 98 GCDs in Texas. They are governed by either locally elected or appointed boards of directors. GCDs are funded by local property taxes and collected administrative fees. They can be established via Texas legislation, by organized landowners requesting a GCD through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and by the TCEQ itself. The size of GCDs varies significantly across the southern High Plains—from a single-county area to a jurisdiction covering parts of 16 counties (i.e., High Plains Underground Water Conservation District; Closas & Molle, 2016; Texas Water Development Board, n.d.).
Key Challenges for Groundwater Development
Nebraska
Surface Water—Groundwater Interaction
The hydrologic connection between Nebraska’s surface water and groundwater was not legally recognized until Nebraska’s unicameral legislation passed LB 962 in 2004. Before then, the administration of surface water and groundwater in Nebraska had been following two different legal water rights systems, governed by separate institutions, and implicitly reinforcing the idea that the two types of water are not connected. For the most part, the connectivity started being noticed when measured declining groundwater tables coincided with observations of streams being depleted in the same areas (Bleed & Babbitt, 2015; Nebraska Legislature, 2004).
Later, the hydrologic interconnection of the waters was acknowledged to be widespread in the state. Due to the determined long lag times between the overextraction of groundwater and the resulting lower flows in a river, twofold measures had to be taken. It was critical to take proactive steps in order to prevent further depletion from happening. It was also determined to be a priority to bring groundwater tables back to historic predevelopment levels. This led to the adoption of an integrated water management law requiring collaboration between Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NeDNR) and Natural Resources Districts (NRDs; i.e., state-level and local government) to determine which basins are overappropriated or fully appropriated and how to limit consumptive groundwater use to restore water levels.6 Since the passage of LB 962, NeDNR is tasked to collaborate with each affected NRD to develop integrated water management plans. To create basin-wide plans for the hydrologically connected surface water and groundwater, NeDNR works with a group of several NRDs belonging to the affected river basin.
Portions of two major river basins in Nebraska were determined to be overused—the Republican River Basin and the Platte River Basin. It was critical to address the Republican River Basin concerns due to the potential consequences of violating the Republican River Compact and, as a result, breaching the interstate water law.
Interstate Water Management
Many of Nebraska’s NRDs are accountable for the impacts of groundwater extraction on streamflow dictated by different interstate agreements. Nebraska’s interstate water management support includes four interstate compacts (the Big Blue River Compact—Kansas and Nebraska; the Republican River Compact—Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska; the South Platte River Compact—Colorado and Nebraska; and the Upper Niobrara River Compact—Nebraska and Wyoming), one judicial decree (the North Platte Settlement—Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming), and one federal recovery implementation program (the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program—Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming) (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013).
The Republican River Compact was especially critical for advancing Nebraska’s water policy and the development of water use management restrictions that are now common in the state. The Compact was originally signed in 1942 to ensure equitable water division of the Republican River and its tributaries among the three states sharing the river—Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska.
At the time the Compact was signed, groundwater use for irrigation was limited in all three states. Indeed, groundwater was not mentioned in the Compact, and the hydrologic connection between the surface water and the groundwater in the Republican River Basin had yet to be recognized. In the decades since, groundwater for irrigation has become the major water use in the Republican River Basin.
Nebraska has been sued by Kansas multiple times with claims that the Compact has been violated. Litigation arose due to suspicions that Nebraska was exceeding its surface water share by overpumping hydrologically connected groundwater. The 1999 lawsuit was resolved in 2002 with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Nebraska and restricting groundwater consumption when it leads to streamflow depletion in the Republican River Basin (Peck, 2007).
The ruling was followed by settling on a comprehensive compliance framework, which included a moratorium on new groundwater well development, more robust restrictions on existing wells, and computer modeling to better account for the consumption of groundwater (Hoffman & Zellmer, 2013; Peck, 2007).
In the most recent Republican River Compact litigation (2013), Kansas sued Nebraska, with a claim that there had been overextraction of approximately 79,000 acre-feet (97.4 million cubic meters) of water during the 2005–2006 drought. In 2015, the Supreme Court ordered Nebraska to pay Kansas $5.5 million for the damages and ruled that additional steps had to be taken by Nebraska to offset the overuse. However, the Supreme Court rejected Kansas’s request to retire more than 300,000 acres (121,406 hectares) from irrigation (Kansas v. Nebraska et al., 2015).
Litigation over the Compact resulted in a variety of projects intended to bring the NRDs in southwest Nebraska into compliance with the Compact. For example, several stream augmentation projects to offset water overuse were established. This includes the 2012 Rock Creek Augmentation Project by the Upper Republican NRD and the 2013 Nebraska Cooperative Republican Platte Enhancement Project by the Upper Republican NRD, the Middle Republican NRD, the Lower Republican NRD, and the Twin Platte NRD. Both projects involved the retirement of irrigated acres, which allowed acquisition of approximately 85,000 acre-feet (104.8 million cubic meters) of water that can be piped into the Republican River when streamflows are determined to be low. The costs for these projects exceeded $120 million, but they have been instrumental in preventing regulatory compliance actions since 2013, which could have caused significant economic damage to farmers (Kansas v. Nebraska et al., 2015; Upper Republican Natural Resources District, 2022).
Environmental Protection
Due to the hydrologic connectivity between surface water and groundwater, the overused portion of the Platte River Basin in Nebraska also needs to be managed via basin-wide and integrated water management plans developed between NeDNR and affected NRDs (Central Platte NRD, North Platte NRD, South Platte NRD, Central Platte NRD, Twin Platte NRD, and Tri-Basin NRD). Managing Platte River streamflows was of particular importance due to their significance to the habitat of several endangered and threatened species identified by the federal Endangered Species Act. To address these basin-wide issues and ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Department of the Interior and the states of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming created a recovery implementation program designed to improve water and land conditions for the target species (interior least tern, whooping crane, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon).
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, collaboratively governed by representatives of the three states, the Department of the Interior, environmental groups, and water users, began operating in 2007. Importantly, this program is designed as a nonregulatory approach and tries to use voluntary, collaborative actions including financial incentives to achieve its goals. The federal government covers approximately 50% of the program’s costs, leaving the other half to be split among the three states. One of the program’s goals is to increase target flows by an average of 130,000–150,000 acre-feet (160 million to 185 million cubic meters) annually. The program has been working toward achieving those goals by using a mix of different methods, including incentive-based management (e.g., temporary water transfers from individual local crop producers) and engineering-based water supply projects (e.g., storage reservoir; Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, n.d., 2021).
One of the challenges for the program is related to water law differences across the states. For example, in Nebraska, instream flow water rights can be held by NRDs, the Game and Parks Commission, and public water suppliers, whereas in Wyoming, only the state is able to hold these rights, and in Colorado, instream flow water rights are overseen by the Colorado Water Conservancy Board.
Water Quality Issues
Complications related to timely or proactive groundwater management are often associated with the low public visibility of subsurface resources. Changes in groundwater quantity and quality are difficult to observe or notice, and it can be even more difficult to trace what causes such changes. In addition to widespread irrigation, Nebraska farmers have historically applied large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn and soybeans. Although many of these applications followed locally published guidelines, extended fertilizer application and leaching have been found to be the cause of severe groundwater contamination (Powers et al., 2020).
Based on recommendation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021), nitrate levels higher than 10 parts per million (10 mg/L) are considered to be dangerous for public health. Levels exceeding that amount have been found in the eastern parts of Nebraska (Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, 2021). One of the areas containing significantly high levels of nitrate in groundwater (15 mg/L) is the Bazile Groundwater Management Area, located in the northeastern part of Nebraska (Gilmore et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021). The area has been established as a cooperative effort between local producers and NRDs to improve groundwater quality.
Regionally, water quality management has more federal-level oversight than water quantity management (e.g., the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act). Since the passage of LB329 in 2001, water quality has been overseen at the state level by the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE), which must annually report on the state’s groundwater quality monitoring. However, the department only manages the point source pollution, leaving non-point source pollution matters to the local governments—NRDs. All 23 NRDs monitor groundwater to better understand the management of nitrates and other agricultural chemicals. The NDEE and NRDs are tasked to work together to create a groundwater quality management plan and rules for its implementation when a need for specific protection is identified (Bleed & Babbitt, 2015).
Testing Ag Performance Solutions
One way to learn about advances in agricultural irrigation decision-making in Nebraska is through the Testing Ag Performance Solutions (TAPS) program, an experiential peer-to-peer learning program. Developed in 2017 by University of Nebraska research and extension specialists, the program was designed to test innovative crop-growing approaches aimed at increasing profitability, efficiency, and sustainability. TAPS allows producers to experiment with new technology and novel practices by avoiding risky investments. In addition, participants have an opportunity to expand their networks by engaging with different agriculture stakeholders (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2022).
By participating in an annual program, producers compete for three different awards: grain yield, input use efficiency, and profitability. Among various production decisions (e.g., seed selection, planting density, fertilizer timing, crop insurance choice, and marketing), TAPS participants also manage the irrigation application process (i.e., quantity and timing). For example, in the 2021 competition, participants were judged based on how they managed a center pivot sprinkler irrigation system applied to corn or sorghum or a subsurface drip irrigation system applied to corn (Rhoades et al., 2022). After the growing season, program participants receive access to a comprehensive data set comprising information about the decisions made during the competition.
Through the support of agricultural industries, commodity boards, regulatory agencies, seed companies, financial institutions, and nonprofit entities, program participation has grown since it started in 2017. The majority of participants are from Nebraska, but the states of Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma have also been represented in the annual competition. The popularity of the program speaks to the power of peer-to-peer learning involving farmers as an education and engagement tool.
Kansas
Environmental Flows, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge’s Water Rights
Declining groundwater levels pose a risk to different water users in Kansas, including environmental ecosystems dependent on river flows. A total of 22,135 acres (8,958 hectares) of land in the south-central Kansas region (portions of Stafford, Rice, and Reno Counties underlain by the eastern part of the High Plains Aquifer) belong to Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge owns senior water rights along Rattlesnake Creek that are used to support more than 340 species of birds. Some of these species are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (e.g., the whooping crane). In 2016, the state’s Chief Engineer for water resources determined that the refuge’s senior water rights were impaired by junior water rights holders who had been overextracting groundwater upstream of the creek. A voluntary agreement between federal and state governments and local irrigating producers was made in 2020, pausing the issue from escalating. The solution involved augmenting the creek by having agricultural water users pump groundwater from a different basin. In 2021, Audubon of Kansas filed a suit to fully restore the refuge’s water rights for stronger protection of wildlife species depending on the water (Asbury, 2021; Audubon of Kansas, 2021; Dome, 2020; Sutt, 2020; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, n.d.).
Sheridan 6 Local Enhanced Management Area
Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs) result from voluntary local producer-led groundwater management efforts to increase the sustainability of water use in Kansas. In 2012, the Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources approved the first LEMA, called Sheridan 6, making landowners legally responsible for following newly established regulations. The LEMA overlies the High Plains Aquifer in northwestern Kansas, and it covers a section of the Groundwater Management District (GMD) 4. Irrigators of the Sheridan 6 LEMA agreed to reduce groundwater use by 20% during a 5-year allocation period, with an option to manage water flexibly during that period (Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). Producers were allowed to use more or less than the annual average (11 inches [279 millimeters]) depending on growing conditions during the season. Landowners also could engage in temporary groundwater allocation transfers within the LEMA. Having been successful during its first allocation period (2013–2017), the LEMA is nearing the end of its second period (2018–2022; Kansas Water Office, 2015). Discussions are in the process of extending the Sheridan 6 LEMA for the third period (2023–2027). In addition to the Sheridan 6 LEMA, two other LEMAs have been developed in Kansas: the GMD4 District-Wide LEMA and the Wichita County LEMA (Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2016b).
Water Conservation Areas
Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) are another tool designed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources to incentivize water rights holders to conserve water. The initiative was signed into law in 2015, providing landowners with more flexibility in reaching lower water use targets. A conservation area can be formed by a sole or group of groundwater rights holders (Schoengold & Brozović, 2018). The benefits of being part of a WCA include having multiyear allocations, transferring allocations without restrictions within the WCA boundaries, and allowing different water uses during an allocation period. Enrolled WCA participants are eligible for cost-share for water-saving technology, such as irrigation systems or soil moisture probes. Omitted administrative fees and public hearings reduce transaction costs associated with the process of forming a WCA. Currently, there are 53 active WCAs (Kansas Department of Agriculture, 2016c). Proposed local producer management plans involve significant water use reduction commitments. One Wichita County WCA’s plan includes starting with a 29% reduction in average water use and reaching 50% cut in average water use in 2038 (Farm Progress, 2017).
Water Technology Farms
In Kansas, to help conserve water resources in the state and increase irrigation water use efficiency, various water stakeholders partnered to create the Water Technology Farm program. The idea for the program stemmed from producers’ desire to share their experiences with new irrigation technologies with other farmers in the same region. Supported by the Kansas Water Office, other state agencies, private companies, grower associations, farmer cooperatives, and academic researchers, the collaborative partnership started in 2016 with 3 farms participating, which successfully expanded to 15 farms in 2019, most of which are in the High Plains Aquifer region. The program allows farmers to learn from other farmers about water use reduction using soil moisture probes, more efficient nozzle packages, remote pivot controls, and other technology without compromising their yields and profits. Participating farmers share their decision-making data, which are later published in annual reports (Ajaz et al., 2020; Kansas Water Office, 2019, 2020). Overall, this program is another example of a peer-to-peer learning program involving farmers.
Texas
Groundwater Depletion and the Texas Alliance for Water Conservation
Approximately 60% of all the water consumed in Texas is groundwater. Although there are nine major aquifers underlying Texas, approximately two-thirds of groundwater used comes from the High Plains Aquifer located in the northwestern part of the state (Lesikar et al., 2002). Due to low precipitation and clay soils, the Texas portion of the aquifer is not easily recharged. Combined with pumping rates higher than natural recharge, this creates significant long-term groundwater sustainability concerns (Lesikar et al., 2002). Groundwater levels in all Texas aquifers, including the High Plains Aquifer, have declined since predevelopment (Bruun et al., 2016; McGuire, 2017). Some cropland in the High Plains Aquifer region has already been changed from irrigated to dryland due to unreliable water supply from the aquifer (Lesikar et al., 2002).
Texas groundwater law allowing landowners to capture the groundwater beneath their land by pumping as much as they want does not incentivize groundwater conservation practices. Some water laws have been passed in the state limiting the power of the rule of capture. This includes restrictions on overpumping groundwater from an aquifer within a Groundwater Conservation District (GCD) jurisdiction; 86% of the High Plains Aquifer in Texas is managed by GCDs (Bruun et al., 2016).
One different kind of initiative to sustain groundwater use in the High Plains Aquifer in Texas was formed by local agricultural producers. The Texas Alliance for Water Conservation (TAWC) is a farmer-led water conservation initiative started in 2005 to reduce groundwater pumping in the aquifer while ensuring agricultural profitability. The group provides practical tools (e.g., a cotton water demand estimator and an irrigation scheduler) to producers seeking to make better informed farming decisions that help sustain groundwater without creating financial risk. TAWC shares information about new water-conserving technologies (e.g., precision mobile drip irrigation and soil moisture sensors) and farming practices (e.g., diversifying crop choice and reducing tillage) based on various weather, water availability, and crop yield scenarios that help manage irrigation needs during the production season. To make this possible, producer-led TAWC collaborates with multiple partners, including universities (e.g., Texas Tech University and Texas A&M) and federal government agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). TAWC is funded by the Texas Water Development Board (Texas Alliance for Water Solutions, 2022; West et al., 2020).
Conclusion
Groundwater management faces many challenges, most of which are specific to local communities. Geographical, hydrological, and legal groundwater management aspects are best understood by those who use the water and are involved in its day-to-day management. Some of those challenges were highlighted in this article, including depletion of the High Plains Aquifer due to overpumping for agricultural needs, interstate water conflict, environmental protection, and groundwater pollution.
Groundwater challenges are often underlain by inflexible state-level legal systems limiting innovative and adaptable solutions to groundwater policy issues of concern. Strong top-down regulatory restrictions associated with restricting private rights or enforcing new management practices have a history of being met with little trust on the part of stakeholders, diminishing their expected effectiveness.
Overall, the most effective solutions created to address these challenges have also been local, often created through partnerships between the government, public, and private sectors. In Nebraska, the solution to a large extent has been linked with creating and giving regulatory authority to the unique local government district system, which uses a mix of regulatory and incentive-based tools to manage groundwater. In Kansas and Texas, managing the central and southern parts of the High Plains Aquifer, various innovative bottom-up initiatives began emerging during the past decade. Multiple groundwater conservation-focused practical collaborative plans are in their second or third multiyear phases, highlighting growth in voluntary participation and showcasing their success. Water users tend to have more trust toward innovative and adaptive approaches to water restrictions when the gamble with economic losses is proven to be minimal by their peers and neighbors.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture under contract numbers OCE 58-0111-21-007 and OCE 58-0111-22-018.
Further Reading
- Bleed, A., & Babbitt, C. H. (2015). Nebraska’s natural resources districts: An assessment of a large-scale locally controlled water governance framework. Robert. B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute.
- Butler, J. J., Jr., Bohling, G. C., Whittemore, D. O., & Wilson, B. B. (2020). Charting pathways toward sustainability for aquifers supporting irrigated agriculture. Water Resources Research, 56(10), e2020WR027961.
- Deines, J. M., Kendall, A. D., Crowley, M. A., Rapp, J., Cardille, J. A., & Hyndman, D. W. (2019). Mapping three decades of annual irrigation across the US High Plains Aquifer using Landsat and Google Earth engine. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233, 111400.
- Hoffman, C., & Zellmer, S. (2013). Assessing institutional ability to support adaptive, integrated water resources management. Nebraska Law Review, 91(4), 805–865.
- Kuwayama, Y., & Brozović, N. (2013). The regulation of a spatially heterogeneous externality: Tradable groundwater permits to protect streams. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(2), 364–382.
References
- Aiken, J. D. (1980). Nebraska ground water law and administration. Nebraska Law Review, 59, 917.
- Aiken, J. D. (1987). New directions in Nebraska water policy. Nebraska Law Review, 66, 8.
- Ajaz, A., Datta, S., & Stoodley, S. (2020). High Plains Aquifer—State of affairs of irrigated agriculture and role of irrigation in the sustainability paradigm. Sustainability, 12(9), 3714.
- Asbury, N. (2021, January 3). U.S. officials see no need to secure water for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge after ag deal. Kansas Reflector.
- Audubon of Kansas. (2021, January 18). Audubon of Kansas files suit to restore Quivira National Wildlife Refuge’s water rights.
- Bleed, A., & Babbitt, C. H. (2015). Nebraska’s Natural Resources Districts: An assessment of a large-scale locally controlled water governance framework. Robert. B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute.
- Bruun, B., Jackson, K., Lake, P., & Walker, J. (2016). Texas aquifers study—Groundwater quantity, quality, flow, and contributions to surface water. Texas Water Development Board.
- Butler, J. J., Jr., Stotler, R. L., Whittemore, D. O., & Reboulet, E. C. (2013). Interpretation of water level changes in the High Plains Aquifer in western Kansas. Groundwater, 51(2), 180–190.
- Closas, A., & Molle, F. (2016, December). Groundwater governance in America (IWMI Project Report No. 5). International Water Management Institute
- Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H., & Porter, D. O. (2009). Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: A brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrigation and Drainage, 58(3), 257–274.
- Deines, J. M., Kendall, A. D., Crowley, M. A., Rapp, J., Cardille, J. A., & Hyndman, D. W. (2019). Mapping three decades of annual irrigation across the US High Plains Aquifer using Landsat and Google Earth engine. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233, 111400.
- Dennehy, K. F., Litke, D. W., & McMahon, P. B. (2002). The High Plains Aquifer, USA: Groundwater development and sustainability. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 193(1), 99–119.
- Dieter, C. A., Maupin, M. A., Caldwell, R. R., Harris, M. A., Ivahnenko, T. I., Lovelace, J. K., Barber, N. L., & Linsey, K. S. (2018). Estimated water use in the United States in 2015 (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65). U.S. Geological Survey. (Supersedes U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017-1131)
- Dome, A. J. (2020, September 29). Deal strikes balance between Quivira Wildlife Refuge, agriculture producers. Kansas Reflector.
- Farm Progress. (2017, November 27). Governor honors water conservation with “Be the Vision” awards.
- Gilmore, T., Richards, G., Mittelstet, A., Snow, D., & Messer, T. (2021). Bazile Creek and groundwater nitrate.
- Haacker, E. M., Kendall, A. D., & Hyndman, D. W. (2016). Water level declines in the High Plains Aquifer: Predevelopment to resource senescence. Groundwater, 54(2), 231–242.
- Hoffman, C., & Zellmer, S. (2013). Assessing institutional ability to support adaptive, integrated water resources management. Nebraska Law Review, 91(4), 805–865.
- Hornbeck, R., & Keskin, P. (2014). The historically evolving impact of the Ogallala Aquifer: Agricultural adaptation to groundwater and drought. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(1), 190–219.
- Hutchins, W. A. (1972). Water rights laws in the nineteen Western states (No. 1206). Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resource Economics Division.
- Irrigation and Water Management Survey. (2019). 2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey AC-17-SS-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Johnson, J. W. (2009). United States water law: An introduction. CRC Press.
- Kaiser, R. (1987). Handbook of Texas water law: Problems and needs. Texas A&M University.
- Kaiser, R. (2005, July). Who owns the water? Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine, 31–35.
- Kansas Department of Agriculture. (2016a). Intensive groundwater use control areas.
- Kansas Department of Agriculture. (2016b). Local enhanced management areas.
- Kansas Department of Agriculture. (2016c). Water conservation areas (WCAs).
- Kansas Department of Agriculture. (2016d). Water law basics.
- Kansas Geological Survey. (2022). Kansas High Plains Aquifer atlas.
- Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes. (n.d.). Kansas statutes annotated. (R82a-702, 82a-706).
- Kansas v. Nebraska et al. (No. 126). (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.
- Kansas Water Office. (2015). Sheridan 6 LEMA economic analysis.
- Kansas Water Office. (2019). Water technology farm report: Growing season 2019.
- Kansas Water Office. (2020). Kansas water office water technology farms.
- Kenny, J. F., & Juracek, K. E. (2013). Irrigation trends in Kansas, 1991–2011. U.S. Department of the Interior.
- Korus, J. T., Howard, L. M., Young, A. R., Divine, D. P., Burbach, M. E., Jess, J. M., & Hallum, D. R. (2013). The groundwater atlas of Nebraska (3rd rev. ed.). University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Kuwayama, Y., Young, R., & Brozović, N. (2017). Groundwater scarcity: Management approaches and recent innovations. In J. R. Ziolkowska & J. M. Peterson (Eds.), Competition for water resources (pp. 332–350). Elsevier.
- Lashmet, T. D. (2018). Basics of Texas water law. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.
- Lesikar, B., Kaiser, R., & Silvy, V. (2002). Questions about Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts. Texas A&M University.
- McGuire, V. (2007). Changes in water levels and storage in the High Plains Aquifer, predevelopment to 2005 (pp. 1–2). U.S. Geological Survey.
- McGuire, V. L. (2014). Water-level changes and change in water in storage in the High Plains Aquifer, predevelopment to 2013 and 2011–13 (Scientific Investigations Report No. 2014-5218). U.S. Geological Survey.
- McGuire, V. L. (2017). Water-level and recoverable water in storage changes, High Plains Aquifer, predevelopment to 2015 and 2013–15 (Scientific Investigation Report No. 2017-5040). U.S. Geological Survey.
- McGuire, V. L., Lund, K. D., & Densmore, B. K. (2012). Saturated thickness and water in storage in the High Plains Aquifer, 2009, and water-level changes and changes in water in storage in the High Plains Aquifer, 1980 to 1995, 1995 to 2000, 2000 to 2005, and 2005 to 2009 (Scientific Investigations Report No. 5177). U.S. Geological Survey.
- McLeman, R. A., Dupre, J., Berrang Ford, L., Ford, J., Gajewski, K., & Marchildon, G. (2014). What we learned from the Dust Bowl: Lessons in science, policy, and adaptation. Population and Environment, 35(4), 417–440.
- Miller, K. A., Rhodes, S. L., & Macdonell, L. J. (1997). Water allocation in a changing climate: Institutions and adaptation. Climatic Change, 35, 157–177.
- Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy. (2021). 2021 Nebraska groundwater quality monitoring report and clearinghouse users guide.
- Nebraska Legislature, LB 962. (2004). https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/98/PDF/Slip/LB962.pdf
- Nebraska Revised Statutes, § 46–702. (2007). https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-702
- Peck, J. C. (2007). Groundwater management in the High Plains Aquifer in the USA: Legal problems and innovations. In M. Giordano & K. Villholth (Eds.), The agricultural groundwater revolution: Opportunities and threats to development (Vol. 3, pp. 296–319). CAB International.
- Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. (n.d.). Water plan.
- Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. (2021). Water action plan update report: First increment progress, 2007–2009. Executive Director’s Office.
- Powers, C., Walsh, J. F., & Pekarek, K. (2020). Nitrate in Nebraska: UNL water. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Rhoades, K., Stockton, M., Burr, C. A., Rudnick, D. R., Burford, T., Katimbo, A., & Nakabuye, H. (2022). Testing Ag Performance Solutions (TAPS)–2021 farm management competitions report. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
- Richards, G., Gilmore, T. E., Mittelstet, A. R., Messer, T. L., & Snow, D. D. (2021). Baseflow nitrate dynamics within nested watersheds of an agricultural stream in Nebraska, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 308, 107223.
- Rimsaite, R., Munezero, S., & Brozović, N. (2021). Transferring groundwater in the High Plains, Middle Republican Natural Resources District, Nebraska. Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute.
- Sadoff, C. W., Hall, J. W., Grey, D., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Ait-Kadi, M., Brown, C., Cox, A., Dadson, S., Garrick, D., Kelman, J., McCornick, P., Ringler, C., Rosegrant, M., Whittington, D., & Wiberg, D. (2015). Securing water, sustaining growth: Report of the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth. University of Oxford.
- Schoengold, K., & Brozović, N. (2018). The future of groundwater management in the High Plains: Evolving institutions, aquifers and regulations. Western Economics Forum, 16, 47–53.
- Sixt, G. N., McCarthy, A. C., Portney, K. E., & Griffin, T. S. (2019). Water diplomacy at the macro scale: Agricultural groundwater governance in the High Plains Aquifer region of the United States. In S. Islam & K. M. Smith (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration for water diplomacy: Problem-driven research and practice (pp. 136–164). Routledge.
- Steward, D. R., Bruss, P. J., Yang, X., Staggenborg, S. A., Welch, S. M., & Apley, M. D. (2013). Tapping unsustainable groundwater stores for agricultural production in the High Plains Aquifer of Kansas, projections to 2110. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(37), E3477–E3486.
- Sutt, J. (2020, December 23). Partnerships at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge identify solutions to remedy water impairment [Press release]. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
- Texas Alliance for Water Solutions. (2022). TAWC solutions.
- Texas Water Development Board. (n.d.). Groundwater conservation district facts.
- Texas Water Development Board. (2012). Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan. (Climate of Texas, pp. 145–155).
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln. (2022). Testing Ag Performance Solutions—TAPS.
- Upper Republican Natural Resources District. (2022). Republican River Compact compliance.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Drinking water regulations.
- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.
- U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). High Plains water-level monitoring study.
- Water Systems Council. (2016). Who owns the water: A summary of existing water rights Laws.
- West, C., Brown, P., Kellison, R., Johnson, P., McCallister, D., Pate, J., & Borgstedt, S. (2020). 15th annual comprehensive report 2005–2019 to the Texas Water Development Board. Texas Alliance for Water Conservation.
- Young, A. R., Burbach, M. E., Howard, L. M., Lackey, S. O., & Joeckel, R. M. (2022). Nebraska statewide groundwater-level monitoring report 2021. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Notes
1. The High Plains Aquifer system consists of multiple aquifers, including the Ogallala Aquifer (see Korus et al., 2013).
2. Groundwater development path definition used in this chapter is defined following the structure of the definition used in Sadoff et al. (2015), where the definition of “pathway to water security” is “a sequenced portfolio of investments in institutions and infrastructure, underpinned by investments in information.”
3. In a center pivot irrigation system, a mechanized sprinkler rotates around a single fixed point. Such systems are fed by high-capacity wells and typically span 400 meters each, for an irrigated area of approximately 130 acres (~50 hectares) per system. Most farms operate multiple center pivot systems. Larger individual systems, approximately 500 acres (~200 hectares) per system, are possible under suitable conditions. However, given the distribution of landholdings in the High Plains, the very large majority of center pivot irrigation systems are between 130 and 150 acres (~50 and 60 hectares) in size. As of 2023, the cost of installing a new standard size center pivot irrigation system can easily exceed $100,000.
4. Information gathered in 2021 via communications with personnel from 23 NRDs.
5. Point source pollution is regulated by the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (formerly, the State Department of Environmental Quality).
6. A basin is considered overappropriated when existing water uses exceed predicted long-term water supply, and water supply is expected to disappear if no action is taken. A basin is considered fully appropriated when existing water uses equal predicted long-term water supply.