Tainer_AMESthesis2016.pdf

Media

Part of Impacts of the 2015 Drought: A Study of Orchardists' in the Yakima River Basin of Central Washington

extracted text

IMPACTS OF THE 2015 DROUGHT:
A STUDY OF ORCHARDISTS’ IN THE
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON

by
Ashlie Tainer

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2016

©2016 by Ashlie Tainer. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Ashlie Tainer

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Shangrila Wynn, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
IMPACTS OF THE 2015 DROUGHT: A STUDY OF ORCHARDISTS IN THE
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON
Ashlie Tainer
An extreme drought emergency was declared in Washington State in May of 2015.
Consequently, a decrease of surface water and unusually high temperatures caused the
state’s $10 billion dollar agricultural industry to suffer losses of crop yields, crop size and
marketability. The objective of this study was to identify initial patterns of physical and
economic impacts that orchardists experienced in their tree fruit crops due to the 2015
drought and if and how they are adapting to future variability in surface water supply.
This study analyzed a primary data set from an online survey performed by the
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) over a six-week period between
November and December 2015. Additionally, a set of documents deliberating on the
Yakima River Basin were drawn on for supplemental data to inform the analysis,
including an interim report completed by the WSDA, email conversations and interviews
with two key informants. Survey results from 41 orchardists located in Central
Washington revealed that 85.4% experienced yield losses due to the drought, 73.8%
stated the quality or the marketability of their crop was negatively impacted, and 61.5%
reported that the 2015 drought will have negative impacts on their future farming
operation and 2016 crop. Overall, patterns emerged between negative drought impacts on
tree fruit quality and storage in relation to implementation of infrastructure
improvements. Furthermore, it was concluded that orchardists generally seek adaptations
in order to mitigate drought impacts as long as they have access to the necessary
resources and finances to implement such adaptations. As the effects of climate change
increase and threats to surface water supplies continue, these results can help inform state
agencies about how orchards in the region have been impacted by the 2015 drought, the
risks the growers foresee in upcoming growing seasons, and future drought relief needs
for this group of water users.

Table of Contents
I. Introduction

Page 1

II. Background

Page 6

III. Literature Review

Page 22

IV. Methods

Page 37

V. Results

Page 43

VI. Analysis and Discussion

Page 53

VII. Conclusion

Page 72


 

iv
 

List of Figures
Figure 1. Washington State Drought Conditions August 2015
Figure 2. Washington State Snow Water Equivalent on May 14th, 2015
Figure 3. Washington State Geographical Map
Figure 4. 2014 Projected Climate Change Impact on Summer Flows
Figure 5. Boundary of the Yakima River Basin
Figure 6. Washington State Department of Agriculture’s Online Growers Survey
Figure 7. Crop Yield Losses Due to the 2015 Drought
Figure 8. Presence of Tree Fruit Crop’s Quality and Marketability Impacted by 2015
Drought
Figure 9. Percent of Orchardist’s Crop Quality or Marketability Impacted by 2015
Drought
Figure 10. Percent of Orchardists Who Experienced Impacts to Storage Facilities due to
2015 Drought
Figure 11. Percent of Orchardists Who Experienced Pest Pressures Due to 2015 Drought
Figure 12. Washington Water Rights Classification
Figure 13. The Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Plan


 

v
 


 

vi
 

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my thesis reader, Dr. Shangrila Wynn, for all of her help and guidance
throughout the writing process. Your support played an instrumental role for my success
in the MES program, and I am grateful.
I would also like to thank Jaclyn Hancock and the Washington State Department of
Agriculture for their constant communication and work on the online grower’s survey
and interim report that was vital to the development of this study and which without
would not have taken place. Lastly, thank you to Stan Isley and Paul Picket with the
Washington State Department of Ecology and their Union Gap Office who provided
insight and first-hand accounts regarding water issues in the Yakima River Basin that
helped determine the focus and scope of this study.


 

vii
 

I. Introduction
Climate change poses risks for both human and natural systems (IPCC, 2014).
Change in precipitation or melting snow and ice due to warming temperatures alter
hydrological systems and affect water resource quantity and quality in Washington State
(Department Of Ecology, 2015). In addition, climate change models predict drought risk
to increase in the Western United States, where drought events will occur more
frequently and become more severe (Dai et al., 2004). As droughts increase in frequency
and magnitude, and hydrologic systems change from snow dominant during the winter to
mainly rain, irrigators across the region experience an unfamiliar water regime.
For example, Governor Jay Inslee declared an extreme drought emergency in
Washington State on May 15th, 2015. Consequently, the 2015 crop season was among the
driest on record in Washington State (Washington State Department of Agriculture,
2015). The water year, which began on October 1st, 2014 and ended on September 30th,
2015, had above average temperatures throughout the state, severely impacting snowpack
and reducing streamflows. At the height of the year’s drought (during the last week of
August, 2015), 85% of Washington was in “extreme drought” status, as seen in (Figure
1) (Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2015).


 

1
 

Figure 1. Washington State Drought conditions on August 25th, 2015 (OWSC, 2015)
Warm winter temperatures during the 2014-2015 season caused more
precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, decreasing snow pack levels that act as
natural reservoirs during normal weather conditions. A lack of snow pack during the
winter results in less snow melt and runoff during the summer and early fall when water
demand is the highest. In consequence, stream levels decrease, affecting all water users.
For example, fish populations and hydropower beneficiaries experience risks associated
with in-access to native spawning grounds and electricity cut offs. Although,
approximately 80% of Washington water withdrawals are for agricultural purposes
(Washington State University, 2015). Surface water is the largest source of state
agricultural water needs (compared to groundwater), accounting for approximately 75%


 

2
 

on average (WSU, 2015). In addition, population growth in Washington State is expected
to reach 7.4 million by 2020, after jumping from 2.4 million to 5.9 million between 1950
and 2000, further pressuring the demand side of water availability (Washington State
Department of Ecology, 2014). Irrigators who rely on surface water sources, and thus
instream flows, to water their crops and sustain their livelihoods are impacted by a
decreasing water supply while facing competition between ecological and social water
demands.
A particularly vulnerable group of agricultural water users in Washington State
are orchardists. In the context of U.S. production, Washington is the top producer of a
wide variety of tree fruits. This includes apples, which make up 63.9% of all U.S.
production as of 2015, as well as sweet cherries at 65.1% and pears with 50%
(Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2015). Peaches, nectarines, and apricots
also contribute to the State’s tree fruit sales, collectively making up 19.6%of all U.S.
production (National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2015). Apples dominate
Washington’s farming economic output, reaching a $2.19 billion crop value in 2013, and
22%of the state’s total crop value (Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2015).
The region also supports smaller fruit crops, such as wine grapes and blueberries, which
will not be included in this study’s analysis. Altogether, the State’s central region,
specifically the Yakima River Basin, has earned the name of “Washington’s fruit basket”
due to the successful production of these commodities (WSU, 2015).
However, tree fruits’ high economic value also comes with high risk. These plants
are considered perennials, or “permanent crops”, because they live for more than two
years and thus must withstand year-round, climate-related biotic and abiotic stresses


 

3
 

(Neilson et. al., 2013). Permanent crops require consistent irrigation and maintenance,
and cannot be fallowed (left uncultivated for a season) during low water years due to
upfront capital costs, required infrastructure, subsequent fixed costs, and replanting cost
(Washington State Department of Agriculture, 2015). In fact, economic impacts listed by
the State in 2015 estimated crop loss to reach 1.2 billion by the years end (Washington
State Department of Agriculture, 2015). Therefore, during water-limited years like 2015,
many regions of the state can experience reduced yields, quality, and produce
marketability due to decreased surface water availability (Washington State Department
of Agriculture, 2015).
In short, scarcity in an orchardist’s water supply puts their product and income at
risk, and consequently the State’s economy. Environmental, social and economic impacts
affect both instream and out-of-stream water users and will only be exacerbated as
climate change continues to increase drought frequency in Central Washington.
Therefore, this study’s research question is: how were orchardists in the Yakima River
Basin of Central Washington affected by the 2015 drought, and what are the implications
of this knowledge for future climate adaptation planning?
Overall, the 2015 drought conditions provide an example for how the climate will
be in the future in the Yakima Basin. The Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology), the State lead on drought, acknowledged this and emphasized need for an
assessment of the 2015 drought impact on Washington State’s agricultural production.
After the final statewide drought declaration on May 15th, 2015, subsequent completion
of the state budget gave Ecology funds to conduct drought mitigation activities. At
Ecology’s request, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) wrote a


 

4
 

proposal for a 2015 drought assessment and its impact on Washington agriculture. The
ensuing data collected by the WSDA through an online survey was used to prepare an
economic assessment of the drought, with the purpose of better targeting future drought
funding and support.
Using a subset of the data found through WSDA’s ongoing online survey, as well
as conversations and email correspondence with industry stakeholders, this study sought
to understand the 2015 droughts overall impact on orchardists in Central Washington. In
addition, historic weather patterns for the central region of the state, locally competitive
water demands, and economic drivers in tree fruit production were studied to provide a
thorough contextualization and analysis of the survey results. As orchardists in Central
Washington plan for future growing seasons, their success relies on accessible drought
mitigation options and their ability to continually implement adaptations. Therefore, this
study’s ultimate goal has been to identify initial patterns or trends between physical and
economical impacts on tree fruit crops in Central Washington from the 2015 drought and
how orchardists have adapted in order to improve future relief efforts for the region in the
face of a continually changing climate.


 

5
 

II. Background
Chapter 1. Climate Change
Historic and Current Weather ConditionsWater users in Central Washington experienced extreme drought conditions
during the summer of 2015, signaling the first time a statewide drought emergency had
been announced since 2005, and making it the hottest year on record (WSU, 2016). The
most recent warm temperatures caused a decrease in snowpack, earlier average
precipitation fall, and a decrease in stream levels throughout the state. As of May 2015,
statewide snowpack levels were 16% of normal, which is 10% lower than the 2005
drought. Snowpack levels in the Yakima Basin were a few of the lowest in the state, with
12%in the lower basin and zero of the annual average in the upper (See Figure 2)
(NRCS, 2015).


 

6
 

Figure 2. Washington State snow water equivalent on May 14th, 2015 (National
Resources Conservation Service, 2015)
In addition, of 98 snow sites measured at the beginning of May, 66 were snow free and
11 for the first time in history (NRCS, 2015). Along with record low snowpack, the
National Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) found that 17 of 34 long-term
measuring sites in the state of Washington recorded their earliest snowfall peak on
record, which occurred on average 48 days earlier than normal. Furthermore, Stewart et
al. (2004) found that average peak runoff occurs 1 to 4 weeks earlier across much of the
Western U.S. than in the 1950s. In result of earlier snowfall and less overall snowpack in
2014-15, and increasingly earlier peak runoff, 43% of rivers statewide were running at
record-low levels by June 2015 (Washing State Department of Ecology, 2015). In order
to understand why these changes in historic weather patterns in Central Washington are

 

7
 

occurring, and what their impacts mean for local water users, we must first understand
previous weather conditions and their characteristics.
Typical weather patterns in the arid region of Central Washington consist of warm
and dry summers paired with wet winters. The unique topography of the Cascade Range
and Rocky Mountains create a large inland basin, consisting of the Yakima Valley
specifically. On one side, the Northern Rocky Mountains shield the inland basin from the
winter season’s cold air traveling southward across Canada. On the other side, the
Cascade Range creates a rain shadow effect that directs most of the moisture from the
atmosphere onto the west side of State (See Figure 3) (Shepherd, 2002).


 

Figure 3. Washington State Geography with the Cascade Range and Yakima River
(World Atlas, accessed February 2016)
As air descends along the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range, it becomes drier and
warmer, resulting in near desert conditions in the Valley. Similarly, there is a decrease in
precipitation along the eastern slope of the Cascade Range as the distance from the


 

8
 

summit increases and the elevation decreases. Although these characteristics are the
average conditions experienced in Central Washington, variations due to climate change
and irregular events such as El Niño can alter the region’s weather patterns and make
them more severe.
A unique feature of Central Washington’s climate is the presence of El Niño or La
Niña, together called the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During these conditions,
there is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the Tropical Pacific having
important consequences for weather and climate around the globe (NOAA, 2015). El
Niño is characterized by unusually warm temperatures, where as La Niña consists of
unusually cool temperatures. In North America, particularly the United States, the
impacts of El Niño are most dramatic in the winter. In the Pacific Northwest, El Nino
winters are warmer and drier than usual, so that at a given elevation 1) less precipitation
occurs, and 2) the freezing level is higher, so the type of precipitation is more likely to be
rain, and 3) the accumulation season is shorter. All three conspire to produce a smaller
snowpack accumulation by the end of winter in the Pacific Northwest (Western Regional
Climate Center, 1998). As of November 2015, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) stated that El Niño conditions are present in the Pacific
Northwest, and will likely peak during the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2015-16.
Furthermore, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) claims that the current El
Niño event is among the three strongest since 1950, out of 23 occurrences (2015). As
climate change continues to lead towards a warmer atmosphere, events such as ENSO
may become more extreme and result in even more severe and frequent drought events.


 

9
 

Future Climate ProjectionsUnderstanding the role of mountain snowpack is key in order to understand the
Pacific Northwest regions water resources and how warmer temperatures can impact their
supply. During the winter, when the majority of precipitation occurs, snow accumulates
in upper elevations and forms a natural reservoir that stores water during times when
agricultural and environmental demands are relatively low. As the climate warms, more
precipitation falls as rain and less as snow, leaving less water naturally stored in
snowpack and glaciers while increasing the reliance on man-made reservoir systems,
such as dams and wells. The snow also melts earlier in the spring, leaving less water
available to feed streams in the late summer when demands for water are highest by
irrigators, wildlife and municipalities. Therefore, climatic variations and changes that
influence snowpack can have a significant impact on water resource availability in
Washington State (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, accessed Oct.
2015).
Using climate systems modeling, climate scientists predict the varying weather
conditions water users in Central Washington could expect for the future due to warming
temperatures. In regards to climate change, under even the low emissions scenario where
the lowest amount of greenhouse gases that could be released into our atmosphere are
considered, patterns of a decrease in snowpack, earlier spring runoff and less instream
flows are expected to continue (IPCC, 2015) and further alter the hydrologic behavior of
many watersheds in Washington. For example, snowpack across the state is projected to
decrease 27% by the 2020s, 37% by the 2040s, and 53% by the 2080s (DOE, 2015). In
addition, the timing of the center of mass in annual river runoff in snowmelt basins is


 

10
 

expected to shift 30-40 days earlier in the Western U.S. relative to 1951-1980 conditions
(Stewart et al., 2004). Lastly, average runoff is projected to decrease by 16-19% by the
2020s, 22-29% by the 2040s, and 33-43% by the 2080s relative to 1916-2006 conditions
for the Pacific Northwest region (Elsner et al., 2010). The Yakima Basin specifically is
projected to experience severe impacts on summer flows due to climate change by 2040,
signifying it as one of sixteen critical basins in the State (Figure 4). Overall, the average
annual temperature in the Pacific Northwest is projected to increase approximately 2°F
by the 2020s, 3.2°F by the 2040s and 5.3°F by the 2080s relative to 1970-1999 conditions
(Mote and Salathé, 2010). In addition, forecasts remain for an El Nino weather pattern
that is expected to bring a warmer-than-normal winter with below normal snowfall to the
Northwest during winter of 2015-16 (DOE, 2015).


 

11
 

Figure 4. Projected Climate Change Impact on Washington State summer flows for 2040
(WRIA, 2015)
To summarize, the central region of Washington State is expected to experience a
decrease in snowpack, less and earlier snow melt run-off, lower instream flow levels, and
a continued increase in temperature over the next sixty years. These conditions are
predicted to repeatedly result in extreme heat and drought. According to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), drought is a period of below-average
precipitation in a given region, resulting in an absence of water (NOAA, accessed Dec.
2015). It is a phenomenon that impacts many sectors of the economy, and operates on
many different time scales. Accordingly, the climatological community has defined four
types of drought: 1) meteorological drought, 2) hydrological drought, 3) agricultural
drought, and 4) socioeconomic drought. Meteorological drought happens when dry


 

12
 

weather patterns dominate an area. Hydrological drought occurs when low water supply
becomes evident, especially in streams, reservoirs, and groundwater levels, usually after
many months of meteorological drought. Agricultural drought happens when crops
become affected. And socioeconomic drought relates the supply and demand of various
commodities to drought. Meteorological drought can begin and end rapidly, while
hydrological drought takes much longer to develop and then recover (NOAA, accessed
Dec. 2015). For the purpose of this study, the focus is on hydrological drought, while
impacts on agricultural and socioeconomic drought are considered as well.
It is important to note that analyzing the impact of drought is extremely difficult.
2015 was a year of temperature extremes across most of Washington State. By early
May, temperatures were already 2-4°F above normal across Central Washington (OWSC,
2015). By the first week of July, temperatures ranged 9-15°F above normal throughout
most of Washington State (OWSC, 2015). This heat exacerbated the impacts of little to
no snowpack accumulated during the winter and extremely low stream flows throughout
the state. Additionally, wildfires impacted a large portion of Central Washington during
the summer of 2015 (for some of this region, it was the second straight year of fire
damage) (OWSC, 2015). Facilities potentially affected include fruit packinghouses and
orchard edges, where outcomes were either complete loss or damage during these historic
wildfires (WSDA, 2015). Of the external pressures listed above, extreme heat is one that
would be very difficult to isolate from standard drought conditions. Therefore, WSDA
and I chose to evaluate the impact of the low water year and extreme heat in combination.
In addition to understanding past climatic variations and extreme weather events
that are expected to occur in the future, it is important to consider when these affects to


 

13
 

hydrologic changes will have the most seasonal impacts in regards to supply and demand
in snow-dominated basins, such as Yakima. A reduction in peak spring streamflow can
be expected, as well as an increase in winter streamflow, and a decrease in late summer
flow. Substantial reductions in summer streamflow will adversely affect many water
users, including farmers who rely on irrigation supply and fish and wildlife populations
who rely on habitat provided by streams for spawning. Summertime hydropower
production and tribal water demands could also be affected but are outside the scope of
this research project. Although, changes in climate are expected to increase the risk of
summer water shortages and increase demand for water (DOE, 2015), which will
intensify competition and increase existing conflicts among both instream and out-ofstream water users. Overall, Washington State Climatologist Nick Bond refers to the
2015 drought as, “A test case for how it’s going to be in the future” (Climate Central,
2015). It is clear that the impacts of climate change will intensify current challenges in
managing water resources in Washington State.

Ecological ImpactsClimate change will increase future variability of water supply and quality in
Washington State. As warmer temperatures shift streamflow timing and volume and
reduce snowpack, lower flows during the summer will make it more difficult to maintain
an adequate water supply for agriculture, communities and fish and wildlife. As winter
snow pack melts, annual peak flows occurring in the spring and early summer are the
most important contribution to many rivers in Western North America (Stewart et al.,
2004). In fact, snowmelt provides approximately 70% of annual streamflow in the


 

14
 

Western U.S. mountainous regions (Mote et al., 2008). Consequently, lower summer
flows paired with higher temperatures will not only decrease water supply but also
degrade its quality. This is specifically important for fish, considering diminishing
streamflows and higher stream temperatures will be stressful for populations that have
freshwater rearing periods in summer. Unfortunately, the duration of stream temperatures
that cause thermal stress and migration barriers for salmon species (the icon of the Pacific
Northwest) is projected to at least double by the 2080s and possibly quadruple for most
streams in the Yakima River Basin (DOE, 2015). Furthermore, dams without fish
passages currently block all five Yakima River headwaters (Keechulus, Kachess, Cle
Elum, Bumping, and Tieton/Rimrock), preventing threatened Steelhead, Spring Chinook,
Coho, and Sockeye salmon access to the Basin’s extensive and cold high-elevation
habitat. Access to this clean, cold habitat would greatly benefit all four of these
anadromous species, with Sockeye standing to benefit in the largest numbers, as they
require rearing in lakes and have not had access to any of them since the early 20th
century (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). Overall, the warming summertime stream
temperatures and altered streamflows combined effects will likely reduce the
reproductive success for many Washington salmon populations, with impacts varying for
different life history-types and watershed-types (Mantua et al., 2010).
In attempt to protect these vulnerable and in some cases endangered species,
minimum instream flow levels are set for multiple rivers and streams in the Yakima
Basin. An instream flow rule establishes specific stream flow levels that will protect and
preserve water in streams in order to ensure an adequate amount needed for the
environment and people. However, in many rivers in Central Washington, streamflows


 

15
 

are below state or federal instream flow targets on a regular basis, particularly in late
summer (DOE, 2015). Decreases in surface water in summer and early fall may lead to
more weeks when instream flows are not met. When this occurs, out-of-stream water
users like irrigators who rely on surface water sources no longer receive their supply.
Therefore, decreasing streamflows affect endangered fish populations and create
competition amongst water users.
The decrease in snowpack and resulting decrease in streamflow during future
summer months will also continue to impact the State’s water supply behind reservoirs
and underground in aquifers. When water sits stagnant or flows at a slow rate, it’s
temperature increases and can result in evaporation. Again, warming temperatures will
then lead to a decrease in water supply and its quality. Furthermore, warmer temperatures
and reduced summer water availability may lead to decreased soil moisture and higher
evaporation rates (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999). Similarly, less moisture will be
percolating into the groundwater system to recharge aquifers that currently remain at
unstable levels (DOE, 2015). In some areas, these changes will then likely lead to
increased drought frequency and severity (Mote and Salathé, 2010). This is important
because a lack of soil moisture paired with increased soil temperature can be harmful to
tree fruit growth (Zhou et al., 2014). In addition, unwanted pests may increase because
insects are exothermic (“cold-blooded”) and their surrounding temperature affects their
body temperature and growth. Every insect requires consistent heat accumulation to reach
certain life stages, so the more heat available to them can cause faster and more frequent
than normal growth in their population (Murray, 2008). Overall, agricultural irrigators,
fish and wildlife and a growing human population who all rely on Washington State’s


 

16
 

surface and groundwater supply will be impacted by future climate change and
continuing warming temperatures. This study focuses on agricultural irrigators,
specifically those who receive their irrigation supply from surface water sources in the
Yakima Basin, and seeks to gain understanding in how they experience impacts on their
tree fruit crops from exasperated drought conditions due to climate change and what it
means for future growing seasons.

Chapter 2. Surface Water
Current Water SupplyThe United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the ultimate water
purveyor in the Yakima Basin and manages more than 90% of surface water use in the
area. Reclamation allocates water shares to the local irrigation districts, such as the Roza
Irrigation District, Kittitas Reclamation District, Wapato Irrigation Project, Sunnyside
Valley Irrigation District and Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. These and additional
contracted water entities cover the seven counties that make up the central region of
Washington: Yakima, Kittitatis, Klickitat, Okanogan, Douglas, Chelan, and Grant.
The Yakima River provides surface water sources that supply the irrigation
districts and reclamation entities within the Yakima Basin. The Yakima River is located
in south-central Washington, and begins by the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range
between Snoqualmie Pass and Mt. Daniel (Mack, 2013). The Yakima River runs
southeasterly for 215 miles until it meets with the Columbia River near Richland,
Washington (Mack, 2013). During its flow to Richland, the river drains an area of over
6,000 square miles, underlain by basalt flows that make up the Yakima River Basin


 

17
 

aquifer system. Through its route, the river is fed by seven major tributaries and
numerous smaller creeks and springs that allow for an annual discharge of approximately
3,700 cubic feet per second (cfs), as seen in (Figure 5) (Mack, 2013). The Yakima Basin
watershed formation is accredited to a combination of glacier recession as well as
volcanic activity occurring over millennia. These characteristics have formed deep soils
in the central region of the State, compiled of glacier drift deposits and volcanic ash
called tokul soils, which are among the most productive soils in the world (Von Englen,
1914 and NRCS, 2009).


 

18
 

Figure 5. The Yakima River, its tributaries and the boundary of the Yakima Basin (U.S.
Geological Survey, 2013).
While utilizing the fertile soil and the arid climate of the region, water
development in the Yakima Basin has worked spectacularly well to grow crops and the
Basin’s agricultural economy over the last century. Starting in the 1850s, private
(eventually including railroad-sponsored) irrigation projects were built. During this time,
it was widely believed among early settlers and pioneers that water was an unlimited


 

19
 

resource and by the turn of the century, irrigation fully consumed the Yakima River’s
natural flow. However, the Western United States has since been humbled to learn that
water is not an unlimited resource.
By 1905 Reclamation stated that there were too many claims and not enough
water available in the Central Washington’s rivers and streams to provide for all the
demand (DOE, 2014). In the same year, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation developed the
Yakima Reclamation Project, which created the Basin’s current storage system and
includes five reservoirs that store over 1 million acre-feet of water and supply irrigation
to over 500,000 acres (Mack, 2013). However, the DOE projects current out-of-stream
diversion demands for agricultural and municipal irrigation to increase by 2030 (DOE,
2011). Assuming no change in the amount of irrigated acreage occurs, irrigation demand
met by surface water supply is projected to increase by 430,000 acre-feet per year in the
State of Washington, with little difference when alternate future economic scenarios are
considered (DOE, 2011). In addition, municipal demands for surface water supply are
forecasted to increase by 30% by 2030 (DOE, 2011). For example, demand for energy
during summer months will increase significantly due to higher electricity needs from air
conditioning as temperatures and population growth continue to rise (Hamlet et al.,
2010). This increased demand will likely exacerbate water supply issues, and during the
summer, will make it more difficult to meet all competing demands (DOE, 2011).
Although surface water availability is forecasted to decrease during summer
months, streamflows are expected to increase during winter due to earlier runoff and
more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. In this case, annual surface water
supplies within the Yakima River Basin are expected to increase by 6%, while the water


 

20
 

supply timing shifts to earlier than normal (DOE, 2011). Even though the total annual
supply is increasing, water demands remain unmet during the summer growing season
when water availability is decreasing due to snow drought.
The Yakima River is surprisingly sensitive to snowpack loss. Cascade snowpack
is historically reliable and abundant, acting as a natural reservoir for water storage.
However, Yakima Basin storage is quite limited compared to annual flow and in contrast
to many other developed agricultural river basins in the West. About 30% of the
Yakima’s average annual runoff can be stored in human-made reservoirs, accounting for
40% of the Yakima Basin's annual water demand (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). This is
much less than other major rivers in the West, such as California, where 67% to more
than two times annual flow can be stored, and far less than the major storage system of
the Colorado River, where several times annual runoff can be stored (Garrity and
Malloch, 2012). The relatively low existing reservoir volume, paired with decreasing
natural reservoirs provided by snowpack, creates unreliable surface water storage in the
Yakima Basin’s future and is troubling for the regions irrigators and consequently the
State’s agricultural economy.
Overall, altered frequencies of extreme weather events, associated with earlier
winter snow melt and with consequent reduced storage of precipitation as snow, result in
decreased summer water availability and significant impacts on crop yield (Mancosu et
al., 2015). Thus, the compounding effects of climate change-induced drought, shifts in
seasonal surface water availability, and competition from other water users require
orchardists to adapt their current irrigation practices in order to remain productive. The
next section examines types of adaptations orchardists can implement, considering the


 

21
 

sensitive growth stages of a tree fruit’s life cycle and the costs and benefits related to
growing these high value crops in a warmer climate while facing water supply
uncertainty.
III. Literature Review
Chapter 1. Growing Tree Fruits
Life CycleThe quantity and quality of tree fruit growth is dependent on the environment they
are grown in. The principal environmental requirements for plant growth include
sufficient water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, light, adequate space for root and canopy
development and temperature suitable for essential physiologic processes (Iles, 2001).
Oxygen and carbon dioxide are required for plant growth in order to stimulate respiration
and photosynthesis. Photosynthesis converts light energy from the sun into chemical
energy stored as sugars, which the respiration process then releases to fuel plant growth.
Sufficient amounts of light and water are essential to these functions. In fact, no organic
process occurs in the absence of water (Iles, 2001). Plants suffer more from moisture
related problems than any other cause (Iles, 2001), thus temperature levels are significant
as well. High temperatures are unfavorable for tree fruit growth because soil moisture
decreases and their rate of photosynthesis begins to decline rapidly, slowing this
important growth process (Iles, 2001). In the meantime, respiration continues and further
depletes food reserves needed for growth. Additionally, leaves release water vapor into
the atmosphere through transpiration, which could exceed moisture absorption by the
roots if high temperatures dry out soils. Overall, fruit trees need adequate space for roots
to expand and access available moisture, while the canopy needs space for development


 

22
 

to reach sunlight. If trees are planted too close together, they will compete for water and
light resources, stunting tree growth if outcompeted. Lastly, the timing of shortages of
any of these principal environmental requirements also plays a critical role in tree fruit
growth.
All plants go through particular growth stages depending on the climate and crop
type. The main tree fruit crops grown in the Yakima Basin include apples and pears, as
well as stone fruits such as sweet cherries, peaches, nectarines and apricots. These fruits
all pass through similar annual growth stages, varying between seven to nine stages
depending on the fruit. In general, all include a dormant stage, budding stage, bloom
stage, petal fall and fruit set stage (Chapman and Catlin, 1976). Depending on the variety,
full tree growth can take two to seven years to complete and bear fruit after transplanting
(Hall and Perry, 2012). The annual growth cycle can then be categorized into four general
stages and separated by the time of year they take place. The dormant stage, known as
Stage I, occurs over winter and consists of necessary chill hours required by the tree in
order to successfully bear fruit later in the year. Chill hours are the number of hours when
the tree experiences temperatures below 45 degrees Fahrenheit but above freezing. Next
is the flowering stage, or Stage II, which takes place during the spring and aptly when
flower blossoms begin to appear. Pollinators are very important during this stage, as
some tree fruits require cross-pollination in order to produce fruit from the blossoms.
Stage III occurs over the summer, known as fruiting season, when the trees begin to turn
blossoms into fruit. Lastly, Stage IV consists of the harvest season, which takes place in
the fall, although the exact time depends on the fruit type being grown. For example,
some fruits ripen on the tree while others need to be picked prior and then let to ripen in a


 

23
 

dark, cool location, like pears. These growth stages may be seen as phenological, as they
respond to and vary with season and climate (Hall and Perry, 2012). Therefore, climate
change and warming temperatures can impact the onset and length of these important
stages, and thus tree fruit growth.
It is crucial to recognize tree fruits’ different growth stages in order to mitigate
drought impacts and increase fruit production and marketability. For example, the stage
III fruiting season is extremely sensitive to water deficit (Lopez et al., 2004), so trees
need to be protected from excessive water loss during the dry summer months. This can
be challenging if there is inadequate water supply and extreme heat conditions are
present. Trees may then experience water stress, where symptoms consist of leaf
discoloration and dullness, as well as sagging or drooping of growing points (Al-Kaisi
and Broner, 2013). Stone fruits are particularly sensitive to water stress during the last
two weeks before harvest at the end of summer (Al-Kaisi and Broner, 2013), parallel to
low surface water availability.
In addition to the need for adequate water supply during the summer to ensure
fruit growth, cool winter temperatures are necessary during the dormant season in stage I.
If a tree does not get enough chill hours, the fruit production suffers. Most fruit trees
require 600 to 900 hours and the variety of tree grown should match the regions climate
in order to ensure adequate exposure time (Geisel et al., 2002). As winter temperatures in
the Pacific Northwest continue to increase due to climate change, there may not be
enough chill hours required by fruit trees for successful growth.
Even further benefits to tree fruit production can be accomplished by
understanding their growth stages. For example, apple trees have a natural tendency to


 

24
 

have a large crop one year and a smaller crop the next year (Schotzko, 2004). Young
trees are more prone to this problem and without very careful management during the
dormant stage, this alternate bearing occurs. This problem will decline as the trees mature
and become more stable in producing fruit (Schotzko, 2004). In addition, treatments for
various fungal diseases and pests, as well as mineral nutrient treatment application such
as foliar sprays, can be achieved through monitoring and timing growth stages (Geisel et
al., 2002). The stage II flowering season is a particularly important time for pollination
and fertilizer application to take place, which help ensure seeding occurs to produce
blossoms and necessary nutrients are provided for a tree to bear fruit. Apples, pears and
sweet cherries are unique in that they are cross-pollinators rather than self-pollinators like
apricots, nectarines and peaches. That is, they need to be pollinated by another tree
variety with compatible pollen or bloom time. In short, fruit tree pollination equates to
sexual reproduction and fruit development. Without pollination, fruit trees would not bear
fruit. After pollination, the pollen germinates once it’s transferred from the stamen (male)
to the pistil (female), usually by bees. This results in fertilization and the seed develops.
Therefore, it is important for trees to be properly pollinated to ensure successful fruit
growth.
Overall, it is critical for an orchardist to recognize tree fruit growth stages in order
to monitor for chill hours, pollination, water stress and harvest timing. Each stage is
crucial for fruit production and increased temperatures may negatively impact their
ability to grow marketable fruit commodities. As climate change models predict future
warming temperatures, a lack of snowpack can result in inadequate chill hours, irrigation
supply and necessary cooled storage. Furthermore, water demand and temperatures will


 

25
 

be highest during the critical summer growing season when surface water supply is the
lowest. What these conditions can mean for tree fruit crops is described in the following
chapter.

Chapter 2. Drought in Orchards
Agricultural ImpactsIrrigated agriculture is the largest single consumer of water on the planet (Fereres
and Evans, 2006 and Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008). A forecast performed by
Ecology found that climate change will shift water availability away from the irrigation
season (summer) when demands are highest (2015). Agricultural water demand
represents demand for water as applied to crops, often referred to as “top of crop”. This
includes water that will be used consumptively by crops, as well as water resulting from
irrigation application inefficiencies such as evaporation, drift from sprinklers, or runoff
from fields. Irrigation is also applied to combat pests through products diluted in the
water, for frost protection of sensitive crops, to apply nutrients that are dissolved in the
water, to improve the physical properties of land, to remove excess salinity from the soil
and to modify the soil pH (Mancosu et al., 2015). In comparing these demands to
supplies, even more water must be included to account for conveyance losses, such as
occurs when transporting diverted water in unlined channels.
When irrigation water is not available to apply “top of crop”, fruit growth, quality
and yield are limited (Gonzalez-Dugo et al., 2013; Miras-Avalos et al., 2013; Morandi et
al., 2014). A study of the water stress affects on fresh fruit were investigated in peach
trees and found that water-stressed trees with heavy crop loads had significantly reduced


 

26
 

fruit dry weights, which were likely due to carbohydrate source limitations resulting from
large crop carbon demands and water stress limitations on photosynthesis (Berman and
DeJong, 1996). In addition, a multiple-year field study was conducted on 'Valencia' sweet
orange trees in a commercial Florida citrus grove to determine the effect of short-term
drought stress on tree health. Results found drought stress significantly increased pull
force required to remove fruit, signaling immature fruit growth (Morgan et al., 2014). In
addition, drought stress had no effect on leaf area, which is important to monitor
considering leaf transpiration represents 95% of water loss in plants (Elfving et al., 2006).
Similarly, Morandi et al. (2014) found prolonged water restriction negatively affects leaf
gas exchanges, plant-water relations and overall fruit growth in pears.
Although warming temperatures will affect irrigation supply during the dry
summer, studies have found one positive consequence for crops. The National
Assessment Synthesis Team (2001) performed simulation models of specific crops,
which indicated that a longer growing season due to warmer temperatures could improve
agricultural productivity. With that said, most Pacific Northwest crops are expected to
grow better in the warmer future provided 1) enough water is available, and 2) other nonclimatic conditions do not change (NAST, 2001). However, as noted previously, summer
water supplies for irrigation are likely to decline in many areas of the Pacific Northwest
due to climate change while evaporative demand during the growing season is likely to
increase (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999).

Socioeconomic ImpactsAs crops become affected by a decrease in irrigation supply coupled with


 

27
 

prolonged and stronger heat conditions, their market value is also impacted. For example,
Asian-export markets desire large, brightly colored cherries and smaller crop growth
could impact their value. In addition, due to food safety requirements and targeted export
markets, cherries are picked immediately when ripe and kept cool to prevent spoilage. An
earlier ripening season and warming temperatures could negatively impact their supply
and ability to match demand periods. On the other hand, pears require long storage and
are often harvested prior to being fully ripe, which eliminates some quality and storage
issues seen in fruit harvested during the same time period. Therefore, pear harvest can
begin one to two weeks earlier than normal and growers may not experience crop yield
impacts.
In regards to apples, a 2006 study that analyzed the relationship between crop size
and price of the five biggest apple varieties in Washington State found that the crops
sizes have a negative impact on prices generally (Ge and Wang). That is, the smaller the
fruit the less consumers are willing to pay for it. Additionally, Schotzko (2004) found
consumers prefer more proportionally shaped fruit. From another perspective, a 2013
survey of U.S. apple producers asked orchardists what they perceived were the top
consumer-preferred fruit quality traits in apples and found that flavor, firmness and
crispness were ranked the highest over juiciness and disease resistant to name a few (Yue
et al., 2013).
Overall, economic drivers in tree fruit production include traits such as large size,
firmly and proportionally shaped, and brightly colored fruit. However, water deficit can
prevent crops from achieving these characteristics. In order to mitigate these drought
affects and successfully produce high value commodities, there are three general types of


 

28
 

adaptations orchardists can implement.

Chapter 3. Three Themes of Adaptation
Hydrologic drought is a local and global threat to agricultural production. As
orchardists in Central Washington start planning for future growing seasons, they need to
be aware of their available irrigation supply and start accommodating for potential
shortages. Three common ways farmers can adapt to changing water availability is
through 1) decreasing their demand, 2) seeking new sources, or 3) increasing their
resilience. These can be done by implementing water conservation practices such as drip
irrigation, building new sources such as a rain catchment system or drilling a new well, or
switching to more drought resistant crops to increase their resilience. The potential to
apply any of these adaptations varies in regards to accessibility to resources, cost-benefit
analysis, and location based on the climate region they are implemented in and the
supplement amount of water supply needed.

ConservationThe first instinct for many water users when facing a decrease in supply is to
reassess current usage and cut back where possible in order to conserve more water for
when availability is unstable. The selection of an appropriate irrigation system depends
on several factors, such as local water availability, crop variety, soil characteristics (deep
percolation, runoff, evaporation rate and topography) and the associated installation and
maintenance costs (Mancosu et al., 2015). One practice commonly used to implement
irrigation efficiency in order to conserve more supply is called drip irrigation. Drip


 

29
 

irrigation allows for exact application of irrigated water into the root zones of plants biweekly (Geisel et al., 2002). Applying water at optimal times and locations in plant root
zones increases crop consumptive use of water and crop yield as irrigation efficiency
increases (Ward, 2008). In addition, this method results in little to no runoff and
potentially deep percolation for aquifer recharge, ultimately returning to other water users
(Ward, 2008). For the orchardist, efficient irrigation systems may increase crop yield and
raise their income per unit of land as long as the cost of installation, cost and returns of
production, and the price of water does not negatively offset the initial investment.
Additional practices have been found to help decrease demand in irrigation
application by retaining moisture in soil. Soil moisture is a crucial reservoir for plants,
and roots are major ways for plants to take in water (Wu et al., 2015). The most common
method for retaining soil moisture is mulching, which is simply applying a protective
layer of a material that is spread on top of the soil. Bark dust is commonly used as mulch
and one study found that under sand covering, single fruit mass was improved obviously
in a 15-year old apple crop (Zhang et al., 2010). The evaporation of the control was 156%
higher than that of the crop covered in sand between March and July, suggesting that
excessive ground water evaporation was the main reason to cause soil drought (Zhang et
al., 2010). Another study found that seaweed extract was successful as mulch when
applied directly to the root systems of citrus trees, improving drought-stress tolerance
(Spann, 2011).
Overall, new water conservation practices and technologies can be a positive
transformation for orchard operations. Ward (2008) adds that efficient irrigation systems
minimize the demand for diverted water from streams, although Ansley (2015) warns that


 

30
 

overall consumptive use of water can actually increase as a result of large-scale water
conservation practices by having more supply to apply in additional areas. Similarly,
many stakeholders question weather water conservation is truly the most direct practice
for using irrigated water resourcefully and sustainably.

New SourcesAs warming temperatures decrease the amount of natural reservoirs provided by
snowpack, expanding the volume of human-made storage becomes increasingly attractive
to water users and managers as an adaptation strategy. Significantly increasing surface
storage can be done by accessing inactive storage, expanding existing reservoirs, and
building new off-channel dams and reservoirs. Although when building dams, the
subsequent build up of water behind the development has to go somewhere, resulting in
numerous ecological and social repercussions. Furthermore, large-scale projects such as
these are costly and it can be hard to find the necessary funding and support needed to
complete.
An additional adaptation irrigators can implement in order to seek new water
sources include market reallocation of water or Water Banking. Both consist of a "Water
Exchange", which is a tool for providing the mechanism to make water available through
mitigation. Water Banking is a way to use the market to make water available for new
uses, such as increasing stream flows and providing water for development. Although
banking approaches may differ, the common goal is to move water to where it is needed
most. For example, increasing the amount of water moved from low-value annual crops
to higher-value perennial crops such as tree fruits. Building on existing efforts to


 

31
 

reallocate current water supplies through a water market and/or water bank could do this.
Under these programs, water rights are purchased, sold, or leased on a temporary or
permanent basis to improve out-of-stream water supply and instream flow conditions,
particularly during drought years.
As summer water supply remains variable and natural snowpack reservoirs
decrease, obtaining new water sources appeals to many stakeholders. Rather than relying
on action by state governmental agencies to achieve supplemental supply through large
reservoir projects or water banking, some irrigators may chose to pursue additional
sources on their own. One way this can be done is by drilling a well or utilizing an
unused one, commonly known as an emergency well. However, accessing a new or old
well is not free from governmental correspondence and requires a notice of intent,
drilling fees and construction costs to name a few (DOE, accessed May 2016).
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a sufficient water supply will be provided by a
well, even after accessing the bedrock compilation before drilling. Each of these methods
to seek new sources can be undoubtedly time consuming, costly and rely on cooperation
between stakeholders.
A smaller-scaled approach to achieving additional irrigation supply can be
accomplished by installing a rain catchment system. Using this method, rainwater is
collected in a water storage unit as it runs off an impermeable surface such as a roof. In
fact, the average roof collects 600 gallons of water for every inch of rainfall (Begeman,
2011). Poundey et al. (2003) claims that systematic support to local innovations on
rainwater harvesting could provide substantial amounts of water. For example, 2.5 acres
of land in an arid region with just 4 inches of rainfall annually, could theoretically yield 1


 

32
 

million liters of water per year from harvesting rainwater (Poundey et al., 2003).
Altogether, decentralized rainwater collection and storage can reduce the impacts of
drought and increase peak flow levels, as well as decrease reliance on ground and surface
water while promoting water conservation and sustainable practices (LaBranche et al.,
2007 and Hicks, 2008).

ResilienceWhile the ability to decrease water demand and secure more sources of irrigation
supply may be limited for some orchardists due to costs and feasibility, increasing their
resilience is an adaptive method that could sustain their crop production in the face of
climate change and potential water shortages. Ways to increase resilience include
planting drought resistant varietals or switching to more drought resistant crops
altogether. Identifying characteristics of farmers who initiate such actions could then
inform state agencies of factors that increase or decrease farmers’ likelihood of adopting
these behaviors, and could be used to direct the necessary support to positively impact
their harvest and thus the state’s agricultural economy.
There are relevant studies that focus on adaptive behaviors of farmers located
throughout areas in the Western United States with similar arid environments to Central
Washington that often face water scarcity even more severe than what the Yakima Basin
has seen so far, in particular the San Joaquin Valley in California and in Colorado
(Caswell and Zilberman, 1985; Green et al., 1996; Dinar et al., 1992; Schuck et al.,
2005). Each of these studies identified characteristics of farms or growers that are
associated with a higher probability of adopting modern or more efficient irrigation


 

33
 

technology. Results showed that growers with more education tend to be more likely to
adopt modern irrigation technology (Koundouri et al., 2006; Schuck et al., 2005), and
larger farms and/or larger fields are more likely to use modern irrigation than smaller
farms (Green et al., 1996; Dinar et al., 1992; Schuck et al., 2005). Lastly, studies find that
the probability of adoption varies by crop (Caswell and Zilberman, 2002; Green et al.,
1996; Dinar et al., 1992).
Other work has jointly considered the adoption of multiple adaptive practices in
the context of climate change, such as improved irrigation and integrated pest
management (IPM). Dorfman (1996) models the decision of apple (Malus domestica)
growers in California, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington to adopt neither practice, one of the practices, or both. He finds
that education increases the probability of adopting IPM and of simultaneously adopting
both IPM and improved irrigation, but negatively affects the adoption of only irrigation.
The amount of time the owner spends in off-farm employment decreases the probability
of adopting both measures individually and simultaneously. Finally, total farm acreage
increases the probability of adopting IPM and improved irrigation separately, but
decreases the probability of adopting both simultaneously.
Another practice orchardists can use to increase their crop’s resilience is by
trimming or pruning trees. During less severe water shortages, fruit thinning is an
effective means of improving fruit growth between the end of irrigation and fruit harvest
(Lopez et al., 2006). Fruit thinning has two positive effects: (1) it reduces fruit-to-fruit
competition, thereby improving fruit size at harvest (Johnson and Handley, 1989; Berman
and DeJong, 1996; McArtney et al., 1996; Wünsche and Ferguson, 2005); and (2) it may


 

34
 

improve a trees ability to hold water during drought conditions (Berman and DeJong,
1996; Naor et al., 1999 and 2001; Naor, 2004; Marsal et al., 2005; Lopez et al., 2006).
However, summer pruning decreases canopy leaf area and may thus reduce canopy light
interception (Palmer et al., 1992) and tree photosynthetic capacity (Marini and Barden,
1987), which may lower the supply of carbohydrates available to support fruit growth.
Therefore, the amount of pruning is critical because it must be extensive enough to
provide stress relief, but it must have only a minimal effect on the supply of
carbohydrates to the fruits.
A popularized method in adapting to drought conditions by increasing resilience
includes planting more drought resistant crops. For example, Li et al. (2016) performed
RNA sequencing on pear samples before and after dehydration and identified potential
genes that could be used for improving drought tolerance via genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is quite common in tree fruit production and has led to a variety of
drought resistant crops. For example, an apple varietal known as the dwarfing rootstock
has become an important trend due to its small root system that takes up less space and
allows for more trees to fit in the same amount of acreage. For example, where
orchardists used to plant a few hundred trees per acre, they can now plant thousands of
trees per acre (Sigler, 2011). In two greenhouse experiments in 2014 and 2015, rootstocks
(‘Gala’ and ‘Fuji’) with known differences in size control and potential resistance to
drought were compared under conditions of reduced water availability. The study found
both rootstocks provided drought resistance, where one produced higher levels of the
ABA hormone that may regulate stomatal opening and improve short-term drought
resistance, while the other appeared more drought hardy in the longer-term due to


 

35
 

development of a more extensive root system (Fazio and Glenn, 2015). The difference
between short and long-term drought resistance is significant because current weather
trends are predicted to increase both in time and intensity. Therefore, studies that focus
on more long-term adaptations and resiliency strategies will be useful. In addition to
apple varietals with dwarfing rootstocks, growers have several alternatives when it comes
to planting and managing their orchards with cherries and pears that are also switching to
the benefits of high density. Altogether, high-density systems can produce more and
better fruit with the same amount of inputs or less (Sigler, 2011).
Nowadays, many strategies are implemented to improve water productivity in
orchards, starting with the optimal choice of irrigation system, followed by the
application of the proper irrigation scheduling in terms of both timing and quantity of
water applied, and concluding with the choice of the best crop management with regards
to the variety and climate conditions (Mancosu et al., 2015). Overall, Washington State
farmer’s water management systems have been designed around past temperature and
precipitation patterns. Preparing for and adapting to the climate change impacts will
require new approaches implemented by water users that take into account how future
conditions are likely to change. Many initiatives are in place and partners are engaged in
addressing these challenges and anticipating future needs by using approaches such as
conservation and demand management, efficiency practices, technical innovations, water
transfers, markets, and water banks, infrastructure improvements, enhanced information
systems and hydrologic forecasting (DOE, 2015). This study focuses on the approaches
concentrated on conservation and demand management, infrastructure improvements in
regards to new water sources, and efficiency practices to improve resilience against


 

36
 

drought conditions in orchards.

IV. Methods
The Research SampleIrrigators in the Yakima River Basin are facing a continual decrease in surface
water supply due to drought and consistently warming temperatures, and orchardists are
particularly vulnerable due to the risks associated with growing high value crops like tree
fruit. Perennial plants, such as apples, pears and cherries, live for more than two years
and require sufficient irrigation application to survive between seasons. In addition,
instream requirements for fish and domestic demands such as hydropower and population
growth further complicate the amount of surface water that can be allocated to these
irrigators. The demands for reliable water sources coupled with a decreasing supply and
increased competition between users makes orchardists and their crops particularly at risk
and is the reason this group was chosen as the sample for this study. Overall, this research
study’s purpose is to understand initial patterns or trends related to drought impacts on
orchards in the central region of Washington State during the 2014-2015 winter season
and if and how growers are adapting.

Data CollectionThe primary data used for analysis in this study originated from a 13-question
online growers survey produced by the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources Assessment Section (NRAS) in November 2015. Data collection
targeted information on the 2015 drought impacts on farmers across the State and


 

37
 

occurred over a six-week period. Of the 452 total respondents, 41 identified themselves
as tree fruit farmers in the central region of Washington State. The individual survey
results for the 41-person sample used in this study (n=41) were made available after
issuing a public disclosure request with the WSDA. Partners of the Washington State
Department of Agriculture (WSDA) promoted the online grower survey in order to
recruit subject participation for the study. Such partners included the Washington State
Conservation Commission, the Washington Farm Service Agency Office, and Laura
Raymond from the WSDA Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program.
 
 
In addition to the primary data collected from the WSDA’s online survey results,
a set of select documents and interviews were drawn on to inform the analysis with
additional site-specific observations and experience in the Yakima River Basin as a
practice that promotes intertextuality. This supplemental data includes an interim report
completed by the WSDA, email conversations and one in-person meeting with two key
informants. For example, an interim report published on December 31st, 2015 by the
WSDA and made accessible to the public online was analyzed for background
information and quantitative data relevant to the survey questions and specific
commodities. Furthermore, Stan Isley, a court appointed stream patroller in the Teanaway
River Basin in Central Washington, provided first-hand accounts of low instream levels
throughout the Basin during the 2015 summer through four unstructured emails and was
instrumental in guiding the scope of this research project. Paul Pickett, a water resources
engineer with Ecology, contributed to the story of historic and current weather conditions
in this study by providing guidance towards water issues currently plaguing the State of
Washington and recent studies on local climate change impacts during a two-hour long


 

38
 

in-person meeting as well as three unstructured emails. Based on these conversations and
the critical data provided by the WSDA’s online growers survey, the physical and
economic impacts of the 2015 drought on tree fruit crops in Central Washington, as well
as analysis of if and how orchardists are changing their behaviors to adapt, are described
below. Lastly, this study is not intended to completely quantify the economic losses from
the 2015 drought, but rather a wide array of data types were used to look for trends or
patterns regarding general effects and responses.

The Online SurveyThe 13-question online growers survey included questions regarding impacts to
crop yields, quality, marketability and storage due to the 2015 drought conditions.
Participant’s demographic information was collected in the survey’s first two questions to
understand what type of crops they grow and in what region of the State. The survey
respondents were only asked to identify with a crop grouping, such as tree fruits, rather
than the specific types of crops they produce, like apples, pears or cherries. So for the
purpose of this study, the 2015 drought impact on tree fruit crops in general (apples,
pears, cherries, peaches, nectarines and apricots) is analyzed.
The survey also asked questions about infrastructure improvements, increased
pest pressure, anticipated impacts to the 2016 crop, costs associated with drought wells,
and estimations of total economic impact on the farm. These questions were answered in
both a Likert scale and a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ format, providing general information on
adaptation themes pursued by participants. However, all survey results were returned
anonymously to the WSDA, and are not tied to any specific grower. Therefore, growers


 

39
 

were not available for further questioning, which would be desirable to gain crop and site
specific information related to surface water supply availability. Respondents could also
submit more than one survey to provide information about each crop they grow, although
this relation would be unknown considering the anonymity of the results. Thus, the
overall patterns or trends of physical and economic impacts on tree fruits is considered as
well as the types of adaptations, if any, that orchardists in Central Washington
implemented in response to the 2015 drought.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

40
 


 

 


 

41
 


 

Figure 6. WSDA Online Growers Survey Questions (WSDA, 2015)


 


 

42
 

V. Results
In order to analyze the various impacts of the 2015 drought and its potential
threats to future production for tree fruit growers in the central region of Washington
State, the survey participant’s responses have been broken up by question. Question #1
and #2 of the online grower survey collected demographic information and are described
above in ‘The Online Survey’ portion of the Methods section.

Question #3: Yield Reduction Due to Drought
Respondents were asked to choose from a range of options for yield losses caused
by the 2015 drought. The choices for yield loss were 0%, 1-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%, and
greater than 50%. The majority of respondents (20) reported losses of 11-25%, six
reported 0%, six between 1-10%, five responded 26-50% and four over 50%, as seen in
(Figure 7). A reduction in yield could be attributed to small fruit size or a decrease in
overall harvest, both due to the drought conditions. Additionally, warmer than normal
winter temperatures during the 2014-15 season could have caused a lack of necessary
chill hours for tress and/or resulted in irrigation supply shortages due to low instream
flow levels in the late summer. Overall, 85.4% of the sample experienced yield losses due
to the 2015 drought.

 


 

43
 

Percent Yield Impact from 2015 Drought

Figure 7. Crop yield losses due to the 2015 drought

Question #4: Impacts on quality and marketability
When survey respondents were questioned about whether the drought and high
temperatures impacted either the quality or the marketability of their crop, 75.6% (31)
stated yes and 24.4% (10) responded no (See Figure 8). Of those that reported a negative
impact, seven reported impacts over 50%, five reported between 26-50%, 11 for 11-25%,
and five between 1-10% with another respondent recording a percent of impact between
5-15% (See Figure 9). Additionally, two respondents who reported impacts provided
only written data, describing a portion of their cherry crop being lost and the other slight
reductions in fruit size as well as crops suffering from sunburn. These results could be
attributed to a lack of irrigation supply, evapotranspiration, high soil temperatures or
pests, which all cause an increase in risk for the success of fruit growth and quality in the

 

44
 

central region of Washington State. Again, the size of each fruit could have been
impacted, as well as the color, lowering its value based on consumer’s demand. Without
crop and site specific information, it is difficult to identify exact reasons for a negative
impact on tree fruits due to the drought, yet a clear trend is apparent.


 

Figure 8. Presence of tree fruit crops quality or marketability impacted by 2015 drought


 

45
 

Drought
 Impacts
 on
 Quality
 and
 
Marketability
 
Number
 of
 Orchardists
 

12
 
10
 
8
 
6
 

Number
 of
 Orchardists
 

4
 
2
 
0
 
0%
 

1-­‐10%
 

11-­‐25%
 

26-­‐50%
 

50+%
 

Percent
 of
 Crop
 Impacted
 


 

Figure 9. Percent of orchardists’ crops quality or marketability impacted by 2015
drought

Question #5: Drought impacts on storage
According to the interim report, the WSDA had received anecdotal information
that fruit harvested in the height of 2015’s summer heat wave did not store as well as in
normal weather years. To try and obtain more information, the respondents were asked
whether or not they saw reduced storability caused by the 2015 drought and extreme heat.
68% of respondents (28 in total) replied that storability of their most recent crop was
reduced by the drought and heat, and one did not reply (See Figure 10). These results
show that the drought not only impacted crop growth, but also continued after harvesting,
further impacting the fruit’s commodity value and affecting the grower’s profit. These
consequences may create additional costs for orchardist’s who are forced not only to


 

46
 

implement adaptations during tree fruit growth to prevent drought stress, but also in their
distribution process.

Figure 10. Percent of orchardists who experienced impacts to storage facilities due to
2015 drought

Questions #6: Drought-related infrastructure needs
Survey question number 6 attempted to determine whether or not the drought or
extreme heat caused respondents to spend additional money on infrastructure
improvements. This includes practices designed to decrease water demand, such as mulch
or shade cloth and micro-sprinklers like drip irrigation (improvements specifically
relevant to seeking new sources are considered in question number 10 and in the analysis,
as is adaptations to increase resilience). 47.5% of respondents (19/41) stated that
infrastructure improvements were completed in 2015 due to drought and one did not
reply. Of those respondents, 48% reported cost per acre information, ranging from $10.00
to $1.5 million per acre. This is an extreme range of costs, highlighting the varying

 

47
 

impacts drought has had in Central Washington. The same 19 participants reported
acreage amounts ranging from 3 to 500 acres, although it is unclear if that is their total
crop acreage or just the amount that infrastructure improvements were made on. Without
knowing the total crop acreage for each grower or their specific fruit crop, it is difficult to
conclude which production required more infrastructure improvements and what they
consisted of. In the future, these designations, as well as the details surrounding the
history of each orchard and previous infrastructure improvements made, would help
determine more specific impacts for the region. For example, irrigators could have made
changes to their infrastructure in recent years and are already implementing adaptation
strategies, but such data would not be included in this study based on the wording of
question 6. Overall, almost half of the sample experienced enough pressure from negative
drought impacts to make a change. Any of the three common adaptation themes
(decreasing demand, seeking a new source, or increasing resiliency) could be included
among these infrastructure improvements.

Question #7: 2016 Impacts
All survey respondents were asked whether the drought conditions in 2015 would
affect the 2016 harvest. These agricultural and socioeconomic drought impacts could
include plant damage, yield reduction, reduced size, crop rotation changes (potentially to
a lower value crop), or reduced marketability. Most respondents (39/41) answered this
question, and just over two-thirds (61.5%) reported that they expect the 2015 drought to
have negative impacts on their farming operation and 2016 crop. These results highlight
how drought and extreme heat impacts can persist over multiple years, and may only be
exasperated as climate change models predict continually increasing temperatures in

 

48
 

Central Washington. These conditions emphasize the need for growers to implement
adaptations that increase resilience in order to sustain their production in the long-term. It
is also possible that future trends of plant damage, yield reduction, decrease in crop size
and reduced marketability will cause a shift in the commodities grown in the central
region of the State and consequently impact Washington State’s economy.
Question #8: Economic Impacts
In regards to the total economic impact of the 2015 drought on orchardists, 36 of
41 respondents provided information. Reasons for not responding to this question may
include sensitivity around releasing monetary information (regardless of the anonymity of
the survey results) or such information being unknown at the time of reply. Responses
ranged from no economic impact to being forced to remove all crops. When asked to
provide impacts of the 2015 drought in dollars, responses ranged from $0-1 million.
Again, without further information regarding specific crop type or acreage amount for
participants, it is difficult to conclude the direct relation between water availability and
economic impact. Although, it is clear that the extreme heat conditions in 2015 caused
irreversible damage to at least some orchards in the central region of Washington State. It
would be helpful to learn the reasons for the one orchardist’s severe actions to remove
their entire crop, such as pests or acute economic deficit, and if they had attempted to
implement any adaptations prior to the event.

Question #9- Pest Pressure Changes
The WSDA staff received anecdotal information that pest pressures were higher
during the 2015-growing season due to unprecedented prolonged periods of hot, dry


 

49
 

weather. To further understand whether this was a regional effect, specific to a certain
commodity group, or a statement that cannot be substantiated, the online survey included
a question regarding the believed impact of the 2015 drought and hot temperatures on
pest pressure. Was it increased or similar to a normal year? A total of 39 out of 41
respondents answered the question, where 31.7% (13 respondents) stated that there were
no changes in pest pressure during the season and 63.4% (26 respondents) stated that pest
pressure increases were influenced by the drought and extreme heat (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Percent of Orchardists who experienced pest pressures due to 2015 drought

Question #10- Drought Well questions
Of the 38 out of 41 survey respondents who replied to this question, five reported
seeking a new water source by running their emergency wells. Of those five wells, each
required maintenance in order to run. The approximate cost of running one of the wells
was reported at $21 per hour, while two subjects stated they were still estimating the cost


 

50
 

and the other two did not provide an amount. The well that was reported at costing $21
per hour to run was ran 24 hours a day according to the respondent. The two who claimed
to still be estimating the total costs ran their emergency wells for eight hours a day and
the other is unknown. One of the two respondents who did not report the hourly costs of
running their emergency well did report using it for 12 hours a day, while the other
claimed they were not able to run it at all because there was no water left in it after it was
re-plumbed during maintenance. These responses illustrate the unknown challenges
associated with securing additional water supply, particularly wells. Without a secure
supply, irrigators may seek out new sources that hold hidden costs and liabilities, with
little to any gain. A decrease in surface water supplies becomes an economic burden that
cannot only hinder the growth of crops but also growth and sustainability of an
orchardist’s production capabilities.

Commodity Specific ImpactsIn addition to the online growers survey, WSDA NRAS staff conducted a number
of meetings with commodity groups to gather yield and quality information throughout
the state and recorded their findings in the interim report. According to their results, apple
growers reported the greatest impact to their crops due to the 2015 drought conditions,
while cherry and pear farmers were forced to harvest weeks earlier than normal but
reported little damage to their fruit crops (WSDA, 2015).
As mentioned above, apples are the number one crop in total value in Washington
State, with 180,000 acres in production (WSDA, 2015a) and a 2013 crop value of $2.19
billion (NASS, 2015b). NASS conducts analysis of expected apple yields prior to the


 

51
 

start of each harvest season. This estimate combines an analysis of typical average yield
per acre, total acres in production, and attempts to take into account any expected
external stressors on the crop (WSDA, 2015). Harvest estimates in the early 2015
summer were around 125 million boxes for the entire state. In contrast, late summer
harvest totals dropped to 118 million boxes. According to the findings, early harvest
varieties were most affected by low water availability and high temperatures in the
Yakima Basin compared to the rest of the state. Based on conversations with industry
representatives (who were not identified by the WSDA in the report), the 7 million-box
loss presented here is all attributed to either drought or extreme heat. In total, the known
loss for the state includes 7 million boxes, each weighing 40lbs, equaling 280 million
pounds of apples lost in Washington State in 2015. With a 2014 marketing year average
price of $0.309/lb (NASS, 2015a), approximately $86.52 million of apple crops were lost
throughout Washington State due to the 2015 drought (WSDA, 2015).
In regards to cherries, their harvest across the state started almost three weeks
early on average in 2015, mostly due to high temperatures in the central region
specifically. Overall, size was smaller than normal, which impacted some Asian export
markets considering they desire large, brightly colored cherries (WSDA, 2015). Cherries
are picked immediately when ripe and cooled to prevent spoilage due to food safety
requirements and targeted export markets, and impacts to storage facilities due to the
extreme heat was only recorded in the online survey and not provided in the interim
report regarding information gained through commodity group meetings. Therefore, there
could have been additional impacts to the quality of cherries throughout the State due to a
lack of storage that was not available for analysis. Similarly, pears require long storage


 

52
 

and are often purposefully harvested prior to being fully ripe. Therefore, growers
throughout the State did not report crop yield impacts even though pear harvest began 1014 days early in 2015. Due to long storage needs, some of the quality and storage issues
seen in fruit harvested during this same time period may have been eliminated as long as
adequate storage was available.
Overall, the WSDA interim report described a large economic loss to apples,
earlier harvest dates for cherries and pears, and highlighted the importance of cooled
storage facilities across Washington State due to the 2015 drought and extreme heat
conditions. By considering these findings along with the online survey data specific to the
central region, we see patterns between physical and economic impacts on tree fruits and
how orchardists are choosing to mitigate further losses in the future.

VI. Analysis and Discussion
Patterns and TrendsThe 2015 drought was the hottest year on record in Washington State (WSU,
2016) and according to the online growers survey, seemed to increase the appearance of
pest populations amongst orchards. Based on participants’ survey responses, 66.7% of the
sample reported an increase in pest pressures. Of those that saw an increase in pests, 81%
(21/26) also reported impacts to their crop quality or marketability during the 2015
drought and 61.5% (16/26) claimed their 2016 harvest would be affected. This illustrates
a trend between highly negative impacts on tree fruit crops and the presence of pests
during extreme heat conditions, although a direct correlation cannot be made without
further information. Lastly, 61.5% (16/26) of those that saw an increase in pest pressures


 

53
 

reported implementing infrastructure improvements. Although additional information is
needed to understand the type of adaptations they implemented, a pattern is revealed
regarding an increase in pest pressures to the implementation of adaptations to drought
based on reports of infrastructure improvements made. For example, it is possible that
mulch was applied in response to high soil temperatures and pest pressures in order to
retain soil moisture and prevent further pest damage.
In regards to the one grower who reported removing their entire crop, they also
noticed an increase in pest pressure. Furthermore, they reported 45% of their crops
quality or marketability was impacted by the drought conditions in addition to their
storage being affected. They did not attempt to adapt by making any infrastructure
improvements or to run an emergency well, although it is unknown if one was available.
It is possible that the extreme heat and pest pressures decreased the quality of the crop
and prevented adequate storage conditions. Further information regarding the specific
relationships between the drought and these severe impacts are needed to understand how
they could have been prevented through access to resources and instruction on adaptive
strategies.
Regarding the adaptation strategy of seeking new water sources during the 2015
drought, five irrigators reported running emergency wells. Of those five, four identified
the percentage of their yield loss between 11-25% and the other at 26-50%. There were
four survey participants who reported yield losses above 50%, none of which reported
running emergency wells, although it is possible they did not have access to one. Two of
the four who experienced yield losses above 50% reported implementing infrastructure
improvements, one that cost $3,000 per acre for 34 acres and the other $20,000 per acre


 

54
 

for 100 acres. Although this is a small sample (n=2), an emerging pattern towards seeking
adaptions in response to negative drought impacts on tree fruit crops is evident.
Of the five survey participants who ran emergency wells, all cited increases in
pest pressures. The percent of crop quality or marketability that impacted the same five
growers ranged between 10-25%, although one of the five did not provide an amount.
Similarly, the four who reported negative impacts to their crop’s quality also reported
storage impacts while the fifth grower cited none. Based on this data, it appears that an
average impact range between 10-25% of crop yield loss and crop quality was enough for
growers with access to emergency wells to pursue using them and absorb the expenses.
Similarly, the same four of five participants reported implementing infrastructure
improvements, alluding to the possibility that they had access and financial feasibility to
pursue all three common adaptation types compared to the other growers. For example,
total costs for those improvements were recorded as $45,000, $750,000, $320,000 and
$600 million. The same four out of five growers still reported expected future impacts to
their 2016 crops, even though costly infrastructure improvements were made and
emergency wells ran.
Overall, 47.5% of survey respondents (19/41) stated that infrastructure
improvements were completed in 2015 due to drought and one did not reply. All but one
of these 19 growers (95%) reported impacts to their storage and 16 of them (84%)
reported negative impacts to the quality of their crops. Furthermore, the majority (63%)
identified their crop yield loss between 11-25%. This data reveals a trend between
negative drought impacts on tree fruit quality and storage in relation to implementation of
infrastructure improvements. Thus, it can be concluded that orchardists generally seek


 

55
 

adaptations in order to mitigate drought impacts. Considering 70% of the survey
participants (14/20) who reported not making infrastructure improvements still cited
negative impacts to their crops quality and 55% (11/20) to their storage, it could be
inferred that they did not have access to the necessary resources, information or finances
to implement desired adaptations in order to mitigate drought impacts. These results are
important for state agencies and drought relief efforts to consider in order to work
towards programs that can provide tree fruit growers with the necessary adaptation
technologies and practices they desire in order to protect and sustain their tree fruit
productions and Washington State’s coveted $10 billion agriculture industry.
Considering the negative physical and economic impacts this study has found on
tree fruit crops in Central Washington due to the 2015 drought, and general patterns
highlighting a disconnect between growers’ interest in adaptations and accessibility to
related resources, a look at available mitigation options for this group of water users is
needed. First, additional competition from other social water demands specific to the
Yakima Basin is important to recognize in order to understand what hurdles orchardists
may face in attempt to implement drought adaptions. While environmental pressures
impact surface water volume and timing for Central Washington irrigators, Washington
State water rights present challenges around who receives how much supply.

Restrictions to Water SupplyWeather-related variables, coupled with Western water law and Washington water
rights, set limits on the quantity and quality of surface water delivered to irrigators within
the Yakima Valley. Western water law and Washington water rights are a defining set of


 

56
 

laws that determines how a water rights user can legally use their irrigated water. It is
important to note that water is a shared natural resource in Washington, and is therefore
not owned by any individual, group, or business residing in the state. Thus, a
comprehensive set of laws is necessary to ensure that the state’s water resources are used
in the most ecological and socially productive way. However, this distinction is
subjective and causes additional frustrations for irrigators who may feel their individual
demand for water use is the most important.
It is necessary to first define what a water right is in Washington State to be able
to interpret the restrictive laws that govern and support it. A water right is a right to use
water, not a property right. It is defined as: “A right to a beneficial use of a reasonable
quantity of public water for beneficial purpose during a certain period of time occurring
at a certain place” (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014). According to RCW
90.14.031 under Washington State law, "beneficial use" shall include, but not be limited
to, use for domestic water, irrigation, fish, shellfish, game and other aquatic life,
municipal, recreation, industrial water, generation of electric power, and navigation
(Washington State Legislature, 1969). An appropriator holding a water right may remove
the water from its source and put it into beneficial use, but only from the specified place
of withdrawal and place of use determined under the terms of their water right. These
conditions present additional considerations for orchardists regarding not only how much
water they are using, but if they are abiding by the restrictions around where and how
they are using it specific to their water right. For example, a water rights holder can move
irrigated water from the Yakima River under specific seasonal or monthly amounts that


 

57
 

are determined by their water right, as long as the water is being used for a non-wasteful
purpose (Ansley, 2015).
Water rights in Washington State are divided into two main types: surface water
rights and groundwater rights. Water rights fall under the surface category if water is
diverted from a river, stream, lake, or spring; whereas groundwater rights are classified as
the right to pump water from a well (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014).
Both surface and groundwater rights are distinctly established by the elements of a water
right and any special requirements recorded on water right documents. For instance, some
of the elements in a water right may include “where you can take water [point of
diversion, point of withdrawal], at what rate you can take water [instantaneous quantity],
how much water you can use in total each year [annual quantity], what you can use the
water for [purpose of use], where you can use it [place of use], and when you can use it
[season of use]” (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014). With that being said,
the elements of water rights are always grounded upon state law and interpreted by a
number of organizational, governmental and case law models to sustain the rights of land
owners, as well as the rights of various entities involved in managing water resources.
Each water right is specific to a location, source, use, amount and other parameters.
Therefore, environmental regulations around surface water supply are not the only
challenge orchardists in the Yakima Basin of Central Washington are concerned with
when drought conditions decrease instream flow levels. Further uncertainty regarding the
specificities of their water right present additional hurdles for this group of irrigators.


 

58
 

Water Right CurtailmentsIn order to establish a water right, one must first file an application for a permit
with the DOE (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014). An application must
show that water will be put to full beneficial use (See ‘Restrictions to Water Supply’
section above) before Ecology will issue a water right. Once the water rights is
considered “perfected”, Ecology will provide the applicant with a water right certificate
for the quantity of water, and other essential requirements that are presented on the
permit. Furthermore, water is considered a public resource and is collectively owned by
all people of the state. Therefore, when you acquire a water right you do not secure
ownership of the water; instead, you obtain the right to use water according to the terms
and conditions of the water right you have been approved for by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Who maintains original water rights is important because a right to use water is
determined by its priority date. Under Washington’s “first-in-time, first in right” legal
framework, a person who established a water right before 1905 has a senior, or nonproratable water right. This gives them the right to withdraw all their water before the
next person in line, who holds a right “junior” to their senior right (DOE, 2015). Water
users with senior water rights hold about 46% of all the Yakima Basin surface water
rights (Isley, 2016), although it is unknown how many of which participated in the online
growers survey due to anonymity and there not being a direct question that asked for such
information. These non-proratable water rights receive their full water supply even in
serious drought years. Therefore, growing high value perennial crops like tree fruits
would not pose such a high risk for these irrigators compared to proratable water rights


 

59
 

ecree

eport

6X)
hly by
ions, Inc.
Street,
7402

The associated dams were all built without fish passage. This sealed the fate of sockeye salmon and
blocked access to higher elevation, cold-water spawning habitat for spring chinook, coho, and steelhead, as
well as isolating bull trout populations above or below the dams.
A 1945 Consent Decree created an unusual water rights structure in the Basin (the decree was issued
in Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, Civil Action No. 21 (Eastern
District of Washington,
Jan.water
1945)).
Pursuant
the regarding
1945 Consent
Decree, Reclamation
holders due toSouthern
access to Division,
a more secure
source.
Furthertodata
drought
annually determines the Total Water Supply Available (TWSA). Pre-1905 rights amounting to about half of
non-proratable
surface
water
identify
severity
of holders
the 2015receive any. Next
the Basin’s impacts
surface to
water
rights receive
their
fullusers
waterwould
supply
beforethejunior
right
up are users whose rights date to the1905 Reclamation appropriation. These rights are termed “proratable”
and extreme
conditions
and should
be pursued.
and are cut drought
back equally
in anyheat
shortage.
Post-1905
rights
receive no water if the proratable rights are
shorted and there is a “call” (i.e., a senior water right owner requests regulation of junior users so that the
There are two classifications of water rights that are subject to curtailments based
senior user receives the full amount of their right). The most senior rights holders thus had little concern
about their on
water
they historically
shorted.
However,
the largest and
theirsupplies
priority because
date. Proratable
water rightshave
holdnever
a 1905been
priority
date and
are cut back
most economically productive water districts rely in large part on proratable rights. Prior to the regionally
historic 1977
drought,
proration
of onlysuch
modest
for thetoReclamation
irrigators
equally
in any
shortage,was
providing
usersconcern
with one-third
the full amount
of their — there had
not yet been a serious shortage of water that resulted in significant proration. Since the Seventies, however,
waterseven
right depending
on supply
in a given
Junior
water rights
are any
water
rightwater, the
there have been
years where
proratable
rightsyear.
holders
received
less than
70%
of their
threshold irrigators see as causing very serious economic pain.
established after 1905 and these users may receive no water if rationing occurs in low

t
n

-8504
7-5608
8279

water years (Figure 12).

hoo.com

port.com

ates:
ar
on rates

se send
ons to
port,
Street,
7402

nvirotech
rporated

Pre-1905 priority date:
receives full water

1905 priority date:
receives- 1/3 to full

Post-1905 priority date:
receives no water

Surface water
use without a

right

water right depending once rationing occurs water right
on supply
is unlawful
Copyright© 2012 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction
without permission strictly prohibited.
Figure 12. Washington State water rights for surface water users (DOE, 2014)
Restrictions, or curtailments, of junior and proratable water right holders in their
withdrawal of water from a river or from groundwater occur for two reasons: to help


 

60
 

prevent further decline in river flows in rivers subject to instream flow rules and to
protect senior water right holders from having their water use impaired by the
withdrawals of water right holders with more junior ranking (DOE, 2015). An instream
flow rule establishes specific stream flow levels that will protect and preserve adequate
water in streams for people and the environment. They are considered a water right for
the stream and all the resources that depend on it. In many rivers in Central Washington,
stream flows are below state or federal instream flow targets on a regular basis,
particularly in late summer (DOE, 2015). Decreases in surface water supplies in
tributaries in summer and early fall may lead to more weeks when instream flows are not
met. This may result in a higher frequency of curtailment for interruptible water right
holders in basins with adopted instream flow rules, such as in the Yakima River Basin.
The water use of junior and proratable water right holders can be interrupted if
there is a risk a water source is insufficient to meet all the water demands on it. About
54% of the surface water use in the Yakima Basin is authorized by interruptible water
rights. A restriction of this study is the inability to identify grower’s water rights
classification and their impact on tree fruit crop production. During drought years when
nature doesn't provide enough water to satisfy all the Yakima Basin surface water rights,
Reclamation determines how much water is available after all senior water rights are
fully satisfied. Then, Reclamation allocates proportional shares of the water that remains
to all of the junior water rights. For orchardists who hold junior water rights, this could
mean severe cuts to their water supply in drought years, resulting in changes to the crops
they grow in order to increase resilience.
Curtailment is typically done by limiting the days the junior and proratable water


 

61
 

right holders can withdraw water from a river or from groundwater. They receive a
notification when curtailment in their basin becomes necessary, which may include a
hotline number to contact for further information. In some cases, they must call the
number every day and listen to the recorded message, which lets them know if they can
withdraw water on a particular day. This uncertainty around water availability and supply
volume prevents growers from planning necessary irrigation scheduling to prevent water
stress during sensitive stages of tree fruit growth cycles. Therefore, holding a proratable
or junior water right during a low water year can consequently lead to unforeseen
economic contingencies and extensive loss of crops for orchardists. In this study,
participants did not distinguish whether their water rights are proratable or not. Yet, the
biggest and most economically productive water districts in the Yakima Basin depend on
proratable rights (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). For example, interruptible water rights
were cut to just 47% of Yakima irrigator’s full contract water right limits during the 2015
drought (Isley, 2016). In addition, water use was curtailed in areas where it has not been
done before, and curtailments came weeks or months earlier than normal (DOE, 2015).
As water demand continues to increase and water availability diminishes during
critical summer months throughout the Yakima Basin, water use curtailment will become
even more frequent and severe. Modeling curtailment of interruptible irrigation water
rights indicates that it occurred in 90% of years between 1977 and 2006 in Washington
State (DOE, 2011). Simulation of future climate scenarios predicts curtailment occurring
in all the years for the middle climate scenario (DOE, 2011). That means that unmet
demand will average 4,424 acre-feet per year for Washington water users (DOE, 2011).
Those who hold proratable and junior water rights will be the first required to curtail their


 

62
 

water usage, although the resulting impacts can be felt throughout the entire community.
In response to this growing trend, stakeholders from multiple interest groups have been
working together to find a solution to their dwindling surface water supply.

State Adaptation ProgramsThere are currently programs managed by the state designed to help support
irrigators mitigate drought impacts and water supply uncertainty, although access to such
resources and continued funding varies by region and year. In order to decrease demand,
an Irrigation Efficiencies Grants Program (IEGP) provides a voluntary solution that
improves on-farm irrigation and attempts to help vulnerable salmon populations. In this
program, water-right holders use program funding and resources to increase the
efficiency of their on-farm water application and conveyance systems. The saved water is
then returned to drought-prone streams that are home to fish species listed on the
endangered species list. The IEGP is designed to pay up to 85% of total costs for
landowners to implement prescribed best management practices that increase the
efficiency of crop water delivery to their crops, which equates to up to $400,000 per
contract. In addition, on-farm projects receive Irrigation Water Management planning and
a pro-rated portion of the saved water is transferred to the state’s Trust Water Rights
program to help increase in-stream flows. Since the implementation of this program
started in February 2016, 62 projects have been completed, saving more than 16,000
acre-feet of water. Overall, the IEGP provides an adequate adaptation option for
orchardists in the Yakima Basin seeking help to decrease their water demand as funding
allows.


 

63
 

In addition to decreasing demand, it is apparent to many water users that
additional storage will be needed for both farmers and fish considering Yakima has
relatively modest surface storage and snowpack is dwindling. There is a general
agreement among stakeholders that improvements should first make the best use of
existing infrastructure, such as reservoirs, to meet these demands. This includes accessing
inactive storage and then building economically justifiable new or expanded storage,
assuming such proposals withstand National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered
Species Act scrutiny.
An expansion project was authorized by Congress in 2003 to perform a feasibility
study for new surface supplies involving a transbasin diversion of Columbia River water
into the Yakima Basin coupled with development of a 1.3-million acre-foot off-stream
storage facility known as the Black Rock Project. But the Black Rock proposal foundered
in 2008, due to a cost-benefit analysis that concluded the project returned only 13 cents
on the dollar and had significant potential to speed the movement of radioactive
groundwater at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Superfund cleanup site towards the
Columbia River (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). Although this attempt at increasing
availability of surface water supply by increasing reservoir storage never came to
fruition, stakeholders and water managers throughout the Basin continue to work towards
securing a more reliable supply. Exemplifying this teamwork is creation of The Yakima
Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Plan, commonly known as the Integrated
Plan. The Integrated Plan combines the three common drought adaptive methods. The
potential for each is analyzed in the next section.


 

64
 

The Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resources Management PlanThe Integrated Plan is spearheaded by the State Department of Ecology and
Bureau of Reclamation and was enacted by congress in 1979. The mission of the
Integrated Plan has remained to make water supply more reliable for irrigators while
stimulating the economy throughout Central Washington.
The Yakima Plan consists of seven elements intended to improve the reliability of
instream and out-of-stream water supplies while restoring the Basin’s native fisheries in
the face of climate change and population growth. Those elements are: 1) Surface Water
Storage; 2) Groundwater Storage; 3) Enhanced Water Conservation; 4) Market
Reallocation of Water. 5) Fish Passage; 6) Structural and Operational Changes; and 7)
Habitat Protection and Enhancement (Figure 13).


 

65
 

Building A Future for Water,
Wildlife and Working Lands
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

3
Reservoir Fish Passage

5

2

2
6

3URYLGH¿VKSDVVDJHDW

2
1
2

1. &OHDU/DNH
2. Cle Elum

Enhanced Water Conservation

Habitat/Watershed Protection &
Enhancement

Market Reallocation

1. ,PSOHPHQWDQDJULFXOWXUDOZDWHU
FRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUDPGHVLJQHGWR
FRQVHUYHXSWRDFUHIHHWRI
ZDWHULQJRRGZDWHU\HDUV

1. 3URWHFWaDFUHVRIODQGE\
DFTXLULQJKLJKHOHYDWLRQSRUWLRQVRI
WKHZDWHUVKHGDQGIRUHVWDQGVKUXE
VWHSSHKDELWDW

(PSOR\DZDWHUPDUNHWDQGRUD
ZDWHUEDQNWRLPSURYHZDWHUVXSSO\
LQWKH<DNLPD5LYHUEDVLQ0DUNHW
UHDOORFDWLRQZRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGLQ
WZRSKDVHV

2. &UHDWHDIXQGWRSURPRWHZDWHU
XVHHI¿FLHQF\EDVLQZLGHXVLQJ
YROXQWDU\LQFHQWLYHEDVHG
SURJUDPV)RFXVRQRXWGRRUXVHV
DVWRSSULRULW\

1
2

3. %XPSLQJ
4. 7LHWRQ5LPURFN
5. .HHFKHOXV

Kittitas County

All EWC
Actions
Conducted
Basin-Wide

3
3

1

2
5

Structural & Operational Changes
1. 5DLVHWKH&OH(OXP3RROE\WKUHH
IHHWWRDGGDFIWLQVWRUDJH
FDSDFLW\

1

Habitat
Action #3
Conducted
Basin-Wide

1
4
4

4
Yakima County

7KHQHDUWHUPSKDVHZRXOGFRQ
WLQXHH[LVWLQJZDWHUPDUNHWLQJDQG
EDQNLQJSURJUDPVLQWKHEDVLQEXW
WDNHDGGLWLRQDOVWHSVWRUHGXFHEDU
ULHUVWRZDWHUWUDQVIHUV
7KHORQJWHUPSURJUDPZRXOGIRFXV
RQIDFLOLWDWLQJZDWHUWUDQVIHUVEH
WZHHQLUULJDWLRQGLVWULFWV7KLVZRXOG
DOORZDQLUULJDWLRQGLVWULFWWRIDOORZ
ODQGZLWKLQWKHGLVWULFWDQGOHDVH
ZDWHUULJKWVIRUWKDWODQGRXWVLGH
WKHGLVWULFW

Market
Reallocation
Conducted
Basin-Wide
GW Storage
Action #1
Conducted
Basin-Wide

2

2. 0RGLI\.LWWLWDV5HFODPDWLRQ'LVWULFW
FDQDOVWRSURYLGHHI¿FLHQF\
VDYLQJV

Surface Water Storage
Benton County

3. &RQVWUXFWDSLSHOLQHIURP/DNH
.HHFKHOXVWR/DNH.DFKHVVWR
UHGXFHÀRZVDQGLPSURYHKDELWDW
FRQGLWLRQVGXULQJKLJKÀRZ
UHOHDVHVEHORZ.HHFKHOXVDQG
WRSURYLGHPRUHZDWHUVWRUDJH
LQ/DNH.DFKHVVIRUGRZQVWUHDP
QHHGV

1. %XLOGDDFIWRIIFKDQQHO
VXUIDFHVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\DW:\PHU
RQ/PXPD&UHHN
2. $FFHVVDQDGGLWLRQDO
DFIWRIZDWHUE\WDSSLQJLQWR
LQDFWLYHVWRUDJHDW/DNH.DFKHVV
3. &RQVWUXFWDQHZGDPDW%XPSLQJ
5HVHUYRLUWRLQFUHDVHFDSDFLW\WR
DFIW

4. 'HFUHDVHSRZHUJHQHUDWLRQDW
5R]D'DPDQG&KDQGOHUSRZHU
SODQWWRVXSSRUWRXWPLJUDWLRQRI
MXYHQLOH¿VK
5. 0DNHHI¿FLHQF\LPSURYHPHQWVWR
WKH:DSDWR[&DQDO.

3. &UHDWHDKDELWDWHQKDQFHPHQW
SURJUDPWRDGGUHVVUHDFKOHYHO
ÀRRGSODLQUHVWRUDWLRQSULRULWLHVDQG
UHVWRUHDFFHVVWRNH\WULEXWDULHV

2

1

6. .DFKHVV

2. (YDOXDWHSRWHQWLDOZLOGHUQHVV
DUHDDQGZLOGDQGVFHQLFULYHU
GHVLJQDWLRQVWRSURWHFWVWUHDPVDQG
KDELWDW

Klickitat County

4. %HJLQDSSUDLVDORISRWHQWLDO
SURMHFWVWRWUDQVIHUZDWHUIURP
WKH&ROXPELD5LYHUWRWKH<DNLPD
%DVLQ

Groundwater Storage
1. &RQVWUXFWSLORWSURMHFWVWR
HYDOXDWHUHFKDUJLQJVKDOORZ
DTXLIHUVYLDJURXQGZDWHU
LQ¿OWUDWLRQ)XOOVFDOH
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQPD\IROORZ
2. %XLOGDQDTXLIHUVWRUDJHDQG
UHFRYHU\IDFLOLW\DOORZLQJ<DNLPD
&LW\WRZLWKGUDZZDWHUIURPWKH
1DFKHV5LYHUGXULQJKLJKÀRZ
SHULRGVDQGVWRUHLWXQGHUJURXQG
IRUXVHGXULQJORZÀRZSHULRGV

Figure 13. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resources Management Plan
(DOE, 2015)
In reference to the three adaptation themes that orchardists may choose to
implement in order to secure a more reliable water supply, the Plan elements referring to
Surface Water Storage, Groundwater storage, Market Reallocation of Water, and
Structural and Operational Changes all fall under the seeking new sources category.
Enhanced Water Conservation can be categorized as decreasing demand, and the
remaining element concerning Fish passage is not directly related to adaptation choices
available to orchardists in the region. Adapting to increase resilience to future and more
extreme drought conditions is also not specified within the Integrated Plan but is
considered throughout as programs working towards best management practices and

 

66
 

irrigation efficiencies are included.

ConservationIn regards to decreasing surface water supply demands, the Yakima Plan’s
enhanced water conservation element includes agricultural, municipal, and domestic
water conservation measures. In 2002, one study found that an additional 95,000 to
178,000 acre-feet of water in the Yakima Basin could be saved through on-farm
efficiency programs (Columbia Institute for Water Policy, 2007). However, there has
been a lack of action associated with the efficiency and conservation programs available
to farmers among the Yakima Basin in the past due to under-funding (Columbia Institute
for Water Policy, 2007), although the implimentation of the IEGP program in 2016
provides new hope. Regardless, Washington growers have become more efficient
irrigators as cropping systems have evolved in response to external pressures like water
uncertainty and increasing competition. For example, orchards using a trellis system that
allows increased fruit production on the same acreage have replaced many central
Washington orchards full of large trees (WSU CSANR, accessed Jan. 2016).
In the context of the Integrated Plan, agricultural irrigation conservation is
projected to save up to 170,000 acre-feet of water in wet years, which will both extend
existing water supplies and improve flows for salmon and steelhead in several reaches of
the Yakima and Naches rivers. A drawback to this particular method is that it relies on
high precipitation levels, which remain unreliable as climate change persists. Types of
agricultural conservation projects slated to be funded include lining or piping existing
canals and laterals, constructing re-regulating reservoirs on irrigation canals, installing


 

67
 

gates and automation on irrigation canals, improving water measurement and accounting
systems, installing higher efficiency irrigation systems on-farm, and implementing
irrigation management systems to reduce seepage, evaporation, and operational spills. As
noted above, these kinds of projects are already being accomplished as federal funding
allows, while the Integrated Plan promises to greatly expand the funding for
implementation of water conservation throughout the agricultural lands of the Basin as
well as the scope of where the projects occur (Garrity and Malloch, 2012).

New SourcesThe Integrated Plan calls for significantly increasing the Basin’s surface storage
by accessing inactive storage at an existing reservoir, expanding another reservoir, and
building a new off-channel dam and reservoir. Inactive storage behind an existing
reservoir will tap the water volume below the existing dam outlet so that 200,000 acrefeet of water could be accessed during drought conditions. Expanding another already
existing reservoir from 34,500 acre-feet to 200,000 acre-feet is planned, where the
additional water would be used to provide drought year supplies and more natural flows
during the out-migration of juvenile salmon and steelhead. This reservoir will be
expanded by building a new dam about 3/4 of a mile downstream of an existing dam
location. However, the expanded reservoir’s footprint will be about 3,500 acres, up from
roughly 1,500 acres today (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). Therefore, the reservoir
expansion is the most politically controversial component of the Yakima Plan, as it will
inundate about 980 acres of old growth forest, three-quarters of a mile of bull trout
spawning habitat, private cabins leased from the Forest Service, and a campground


 

68
 

(Garrity and Malloch, 2012).
By building the new off-channel dam and storage, pumping from the Yakima
River will be required to fill the 162,500-acre foot reservoir and will be stored behind a
450-foot high dam. The reservoir will have a footprint of about 1,400 acres, including
1,055 acres of shrub steppe habitat (Garrity and Malloch, 2012). Half of the water stored
behind the dam will be used to improve flows for salmon and steelhead while the other
half will be used to improve the reliability of the water supply for existing irrigators.
While some may see new or expanded water storage as the preeminent feature of the
Integrated Plan, others see it as a targeted solution that is one component of a much larger
strategy to meet the specific needs of the Yakima Basin’s agricultural industry and
fisheries (Garrity and Malloch, 2012).
Water banking provides another option for seeking new water sources and the
Integrated Plan proposes to increase the amount of water moved from low-value annual
crops to higher-value perennial crops such as tree fruits, while claims will reduce the
delay for such transactions. This will occur in two phases, both of which managers
working on the plan admit will require more fleshing out (Garrity and Malloch, 2012).
The first phase will involve a near-term effort to build on the Basin’s existing water
market by providing additional administrative and technical support to encourage more
transactions. The second phase will require more substantial changes to law and policy to
facilitate more inter-irrigation district water exchanges in addition to the intra-district
exchanges that are more common in the Basin today. The initial goal for this program is
to market up to 60,000 acre-feet of water supply. However, as the price of water increases
and institutional barriers are reduced, some parties are estimating that much more water


 

69
 

will be marketed on a temporary basis during low-water years (Garrity and Malloch,
2012).
As promising as the Yakima Plan sounds, securing the monetary support to fulfill
the budget for its broad-based approach proves challenging for the state of Washington
and will take time. The Plan in its entirety would cost the state $4 billion dollars (Garrity
and Malloch, 2012). In addition to securing the necessary funding, the program will not
and could not be built immediately. The Yakima Plan sets up a series of projects that will
be tackled over a three or four decade time period. That makes the $4 billion dollar
project a still ambitious, but much more manageable target. On the other hand, time also
raises issues around the appropriate sequencing of element implementation, ability to
maintain stakeholder and political support and interest, and increasingly threatening
environmental changes. According to analysis of a report written by Senior Western
Water Program Manager Steven Malloch and American River’s Washington State
Conservation Director Michael Garrity, these concerns are serious current discussion
topics among Plan managers, who aim to create project groups that address enough
interests to keep the political coalition together.

Future Plans and Perceived HurdlesCentral Washington needs well-coordinated adaptation strategies across the basin
to improve resilience, reduce risks, and increase water sustainability. Bottom-up
integrated planning, like the Integrated Plan provides, could help prepare Washington for
future changing climate and balance the states water demand with the varying seasonal
water availability. The agricultural community faces both environmental and regulatory

 

70
 

challenges when addressing this water scarcity issue. Irrigators must navigate the State’s
water laws and abide by the ecological and political contingencies in place in order to
continue ownership of their water right. As users of “waters of the State” for irrigation,
farmers are subject to regulation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In many instances, the process of achieving and
demonstrating compliance with these regulations can be particularly daunting as the
pressures related to climate change and population growth further increase demand for
water resources. While it is often possible for a senior water right holder or farmer with
annual rather than perennial crops to overcome these issues and still make a profit, the
process may not always be economically feasible for orchardists with an interruptible
water right. Surface water availability and allocation for irrigation in the Yakima Basin
present a culmination of various issues facing Central Washington farmers.

 

Lastly, the Yakima Basin is expected to experience yet another water shortfall

during the 2016 irrigation season. According to scientists, in the 21st Century the Yakima
Basin will, “Transition to earlier and reduced spring snowmelt as the century progresses,
which results in increased curtailment of water deliveries, especially to junior water
rights holders” (Vano, 2007). There are numerous sources, reports, scientific journal
articles, and books about this topic that all agree that climate change will be the cause of
warming temperatures for the region, and result in a recurrent decline in the Basin’s
snowpack.
While there are some plans and projects already in place to minimize the limited
water supply impacts from 2015 on future growing seasons, there is still a great deal of
uncertainty among the Basin’s water users, water resource managers and all of the


 

71
 

individuals that work diligently to maintain this precious resource. With warming
temperatures, a projected increase in less reliable water resources, and the unforeseen
consequences of climate change, it is vital that water users establish and implement a
model for how basins everywhere can create a sustainable future for all of its inhabitants
for many years to come.

VII. Conclusion
In many respects, Reclamation succeeded in its mandate to develop a robust
agricultural economy in Central Washington. However, in fulfilling that mission the
environmental tradeoffs have been devastating. The main conclusion from this study is
that impacts on tree fruit production in the Yakima Basin due to the 2015 drought were
widespread and will be ongoing. It was found from 41 orchardist’s survey responses that
85.4% experienced yield losses due to the drought, 73.8% stated the quality or the
marketability of their crop was negatively impacted, and 61.5% reported that they expect
the 2015 drought to have negative impacts on their future farming operation and 2016
crop. Based on this data, patterns emerged between negative drought impacts on tree fruit
quality and storage in relation to implementation of infrastructure improvements.
Furthermore, 70% of the survey participants who reported not pursuing infrastructure
improvements still cited negative impacts to their crop’s quality and 55% to their storage.
Therefore, it can be concluded that orchardists generally seek adaptations in order to
mitigate drought impacts as long as they have access to the necessary resources,
information and finances to implement such adaptations. In the agricultural industry, a
drought is not a single point of impact, simply because crop growing periods, soil health,


 

72
 

drought-damaged plants, and water supplies take time to resolve. Based on the presence
of these conditions reported by survey participants and supplemental analysis of key
documents, this study concludes that compounded impacts from meteorological,
hydrological, and agricultural drought affected the central region of Washington State
during the 2015 growing season.
This study was restricted by in-access to survey respondents, which could have
provided additional data on specific demographic information for the orchardists. For
example, understanding the tree fruit type they grow and on what acreage, as well as how
long they have been in production and the water right classification they operate with,
could provide further trends around drought impacts on orchardists in the Yakima Basin
and what motivates them to seek adaptation methods during low water years.
Looking ahead, the Climate Predictions Center (CPC) states that there is a 4854% chance (depending on the month) that the temperatures in the Yakima Basin will
reach above normal conditions between May and September of 2016, compared to near
or below normal temperatures. There is not much indication of how precipitation will
turn out for the 2016 water year, considering the CPC outlook predicts equal chances of
below, equal to, or above normal precipitation for the entire state (OWSC, 2016). As of
April 16th, 2016 snowpack for the Upper Yakima Basin was recorded at 80% of normal
amounts while the lower basin was recorded at 110% normal (NRCS, 2016). In fact, over
one month the amount of snow that fell in the Cascade Range was higher than what fell
during all of the 2014-2015 winter (WSU, 2016). Although since then, the State has seen
its hottest day on record for the month of April, with temperatures reaching 89 degrees
Fahrenheit, breaking the previous record set in 1976 by four degrees (National Weather


 

73
 

Service, 2016). This is cause for warning regarding another hot and potentially dry
wildfire season in 2016, while water supplies appear to be slightly recovering. Although
meteorological drought conditions may improve compared to the 2015 weather patterns,
pressures from high temperatures and lasting drought effects that surround availability of
surface water supply continue to compound an agricultural drought scenario. Based on
the early weather and temperature conditions in Washington State, it is clear that there is
an economic demand for our stewardship to protect the threatened quality of our
environment and agricultural commodities.
In order to address the current problems and prepare for radically different
conditions that disruption of the climate brings, stakeholders need to work together and
think broadly. It is for these reasons that The Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resources
Management Plan was created. By implementing the extensive Integrated Plan,
Reclamation aims to establish a framework for solving a 30-year dilemma that has caused
economic uncertainty, inhibited growth, and limited recovery of fisheries, while
addressing Yakima’s water needs today and into the future. The Yakima Plan is a
comprehensive approach that involves reaching out to historical adversaries and taking a
broad view of the Yakima Basin’s environment, economics, and future climate.
Considering The Plan incorporates each of the three adaptation themes this study used for
analysis, it could provide orchardists with the necessary resources and strategies required
to mitigate negative impacts from future drought scenarios and low water supply years.
Ultimately, we will not know the total impact of the 2015 drought for two to four
more years, and that is only if another drought does not occur during this time.
Meanwhile, farming operations will struggle to stay solvent, despite their technological


 

74
 

innovation and adapting practices, if climate and weather changes like those seen in 2015
become more regular and even more extreme and adaptation resources are not made more
accessible and feasible to orchardists in the Yakima River Basin of Central Washington.


 

75
 

Bibliography:
“Agritourism.” Wenatchee Valley Chamber of Commerce. Accessed November 20, 2015.
http://wenatchee.org/listings/category/agritourism/.
Berman, M. E., and T. M. DeJong. "Water stress and crop load effects on fruit fresh and dry
weights in peach (Prunus persica)." Tree Physiology 16.10 (1996): 859-864.
Bhandari, Preety M., Suruchi Bhadwal, and Ulka Kelkar. “Examining Adaptation and
Mitigation Opportunities in the Context of the Integrated Watershed Management
Programme of the Government of India.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 12, no. 5 (April 6, 2007): 919–33.
Bond, Nick. "The West Coast Is in Hot Water." The West Coast Is in Hot Water. Climate
Central, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2016.
Brinegar, Hilary R., and Frank A. Ward. “Basin Impacts of Irrigation Water Conservation
Policy.” Ecological Economics, Special Section: Analyzing the global human
appropriation of net primary production - processes, trajectories, implications, 69, no. 2
(December 15, 2009): 414–26.
Bruneau, Joel, Diane Dupont, and Steven Renzetti. “Economic Instruments, Innovation, and
Efficient Water Use.” Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques 39 (August 1,
2013): S11–22.
Bryan, Elizabeth, Claudia Ringler, Barrack Okoba, Jawoo Koo, Mario Herrero, and Silvia
Silvestri. “Can Agriculture Support Climate Change Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation and Rural Livelihoods? Insights from Kenya.” Climatic Change 118, no. 2
(December 5, 2012): 151–65.
Climate Impacts Group. “Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Pacific
Northwest.” University of Washington, Seattle, August 17, 2004.
http://www.oregon.gov/energy/GBLWRM/docs/D-PNWimpacts.pdf.
Cook, Benjamin I., Toby R. Ault, and Jason E. Smerdon. “Unprecedented 21st Century
Drought Risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains.” Science Advances 1, no. 1
(February 1, 2015): e1400082.
“County Summary Highlights.” Census. United States Department of Agriculture, 2012.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_Co
unty_Level/Washington/.
Dagnino, Macarena, and Frank A. Ward. “Economics of Agricultural Water Conservation:
Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications.” International Journal of Water Resources
Development 28, no. 4 (December 1, 2012): 577–600.


 

76
 

Dai, A., K. E. Trenberth, and T. Qian. “A Global Data Set of Palmer Drought Severity Index
for 1870-2002: Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming”. J.
Hydrometeorology, 5 (2004): 1117-1130.
"Definition of Drought." Definition of Drought. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association (Accessed Dec. 2015). <https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoringreferences/dyk/drought-definition>.
Department of Ecology. “Columbia River Basin Long-Term Water Supply and Demand
Forecast.” Washington State Legislative Report. State of Washington (2011).
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1112011.pdf.
Dijl, E. A. van, K. A. Grogan, and T. Borisova. “Determinants of Adoption of Drought
Adaptations among Vegetable Growers in Florida.” Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 70, no. 4 (July 1, 2015): 218–31.
Donley, Erin E., Robert J. Naiman, and Mathieu D. Marineau. “Strategic Planning for
Instream Flow Restoration: A Case Study of Potential Climate Change Impacts in the
Central Columbia River Basin.” Global Change Biology 18, no. 10 (October 2012):
3071–86.
"El Niño/La Niña Background." El Niño/La Niña Background. World Meteorological
Organization, June 2015. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_background.html>.
"El Niño, La Nina, and the Western U.S., Alaska and Hawaii." El Niño, La Nina, and the
Western U.S., Alaska and Hawaii. Western Regional Climate Center, 16 June 1998. Web.
3 Mar. 2016. <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/enso/ensofaq.html>.
Elfving, Don C., Merrill R. Kaufmann, and Anthony E. Hall. "Interpreting Leaf Water
Potential Measurements with a Model of the Soil‐Plant‐Atmosphere
Continuum." Physiologia plantarum 27.2 (1972): 161-168.
Elsner, Marketa M., Lan Cuo, Nathalie Voisin, Jeffrey S. Deems, Alan F. Hamlet, Julie A.
Vano, Kristian E. B. Mickelson, Se-Yeun Lee, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier. “Implications
of 21st Century Climate Change for the Hydrology of Washington State.” Climatic
Change 102, no. 1/2 (September 2010): 225–60.
"ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions." ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current
Status and Predictions. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, June 2015. Web.
3 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolutionstatus-fcsts-web.pdf>.
Evans, R. G., B. N. Girgin, J. F. Chenoweth, and M. W. Kroeger. “Surge Irrigation with
Residues to Reduce Soil Erosion.” Agricultural Water Management 27, no. 3–4 (July
1995): 283–97.


 

77
 

Fereres, Elias, and Robert G. Evans. “Irrigation of Fruit Trees and Vines: An Introduction.”
Irrigation Science 24, no. 2 (October 26, 2005): 55–57.
Fuentes, Juan P, Markus Flury, David R Huggins, and David F Bezdicek. “Soil Water and
Nitrogen Dynamics in Dryland Cropping Systems of Washington State, USA.” Soil and
Tillage Research 71, no. 1 (May 2003): 33–47.
Garrity, M. and Malloch, S. The Water Report: Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Plan.
Eugene: Envirotech Publications, Inc. (2012).
Giusti, E., and S. Marsili-Libelli. “A Fuzzy Decision Support System for Irrigation and Water
Conservation in Agriculture.” Environmental Modelling & Software 63 (January 2015):
73–86.
Gonzalez-Dugo, Victoria, et al. "Using high resolution UAV thermal imagery to assess the
variability in the water status of five fruit tree species within a commercial
orchard." Precision Agriculture 14.6 (2013): 660-678.
Gregorio Egea, Ian C. Dodd, MarÃa M. González-Real, Rafael Domingo, and
Alain Baille. “Partial Rootzone Drying Improves Almond Tree Leaf-Level Water Use
Efficiency and Afternoon Water Status Compared with Regulated Deficit Irrigation.”
Functional Plant Biology 38, no. 5 (May 2011): 372–85.
Hamlet, Alan F., and Dennis P. Lettenmaier. “Effects of Climate Change on Hydrology and
Water Resources in the Columbia River Basin1.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 35, no. 6 (December 1, 1999): 1597–1623.
Hamlet, Alan F., Se-Yeun Lee, Kristian E. B. Mickelson, and Marketa M. Elsner. “Effects of
Projected Climate Change on Energy Supply and Demand in the Pacific Northwest and
Washington State.” Climatic Change 102, no. 1/2 (September 2010): 103–28.
Helin, Janne, Kari Hyytiäinen, Eeva-Liisa Korpela, and Mikko Kuussaari. “Model for
Quantifying the Synergies between Farmland Biodiversity Conservation and Water
Protection at Catchment Scale.” Journal of Environmental Management 131 (December
15, 2013): 307–17.
Hicks, Bill. (2008). A cost-benefit analysis of rainwater harvesting at commercial facilities in
Arlington County, Virginia. Duke University. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu:8080/dspace/
bitstream/10161/512/1/MP_wdh11_a_200805.pdf
IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2014):
151 pp.


 

78
 

Jara-Rojas, Roberto, Boris E. Bravo-Ureta, and José Díaz. “Adoption of Water Conservation
Practices: A Socioeconomic Analysis of Small-Scale Farmers in Central Chile.”
Agricultural Systems 110 (July 2012): 54–62.
LaBranche, A., Wack, H. O., Crawford, D., Crawford, E., & Brand, C. (2007). Virginia
rainwater harvesting manual. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from
http://www.cabellbrandcenter.org/ Virginia%20Rainwater%20Harvesting%20Manual.pdf
Lalika, Makarius C. S., Patrick Meire, Yonika M. Ngaga, and Ladislaus Chang’a.
“Understanding Watershed Dynamics and Impacts of Climate Change and Variability in
the Pangani River Basin, Tanzania.” Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 15, no. 1 (February
25, 2015): 26–38.
Leib, Brian G, Todd V Elliott, and Gary Matthews. “WISE: A Web-Linked and Producer
Oriented Program for Irrigation Scheduling.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
33, no. 1 (December 2001): 1–6.
Leib, Brian G, Mary Hattendorf, Todd Elliott, and Gary Matthews. “Adoption and Adaptation
of Scientific Irrigation Scheduling: Trends from Washington, USA as of 1998.”
Agricultural Water Management 55, no. 2 (June 14, 2002): 105–20.
Lewis, Dale, Samuel D. Bell, John Fay, Kim L. Bothi, Lydiah Gatere, Makando Kabila,
Mwangala Mukamba, et al. “Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) Links
Biodiversity Conservation with Sustainable Improvements in Livelihoods and Food
Production.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 108, no. 34 (August 23, 2011): 13957–62.
“Low-Interest Loans Available on Drought Designation.” Wenatchee Business Journal 18, no.
5 (May 2004): A5.
Mack, S. E. Washington Supreme Court Brings Yakima River Basin. Seattle: Western Water
Law & Policy Reporter. (2013).
Mancosu, Noemi, Richard L. Snyder, Gavriil Kyriakakis, and Donatella Spano. “Water
Scarcity and Future Challenges for Food Production.” Water (20734441) 7, no. 3 (March
2015): 975–92.
Mankin, Justin S., Daniel Viviroli, Deepti Singh, Arjen Y. Hoekstra, and Noah S.
Diffenbaugh. “The Potential for Snow to Supply Human Water Demand in the Present
and Future.” Environmental Research Letters 10, no. 11 (2015): 114016.
Mann, Michael E., and Peter H. Gleick. “Climate Change and California Drought in the 21st
Century.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 13 (March 31,
2015): 3858–59.


 

79
 

Mantua, Nathan, Ingrid Tohver, and Alan Hamlet. “Climate Change Impacts on Streamflow
Extremes and Summertime Stream Temperature and Their Possible Consequences for
Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State.” Climatic Change 102, no. 1/2
(September 2010): 187–223.
McDonald, Robert I., and Evan H. Girvetz. “Two Challenges for U.S. Irrigation Due to
Climate Change: Increasing Irrigated Area in Wet States and Increasing Irrigation Rates
in Dry States.” PLoS ONE 8, no. 6 (June 2013): 1–10.
Mertz, Chris, Dennis Koong, and Steve Anderson. “2014 Washington Annual Statistical
Bulletin,” 2014.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Annual_Statistica
l_Bulletin/2014/bulletin_wa_2014.pdf.
Miller, Elbert E. “Economic and Social Change in the Columbia Basin, Washington.” Land
Economics 41, no. 4 (November 1965): 335.
Mirás-Avalos, José M., et al. "Combined effects of water stress and fruit thinning on fruit and
vegetative growth of a very early-maturing peach cultivar: assessment by means of a fruit
tree model, QualiTree." Irrigation Science 31.5 (2013): 1039-1051.
Mote, Phillip, Alexander Peterson, Spencer Reeder, Hugh Shipman, and Lara Binder. “Sea
Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State.” Univeristy of Washington
Climate Impacts Group and Washington Department of Ecology (January 2008).
Morandi, Brunella, et al. "Increasing water stress negatively affects pear fruit growth by
reducing first its xylem and then its phloem inflow." Journal of plant physiology 171.16
(2014): 1500-1509.
Mote, Phillip, and Eric Salathé Jr. “Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest.” Climate Change
102, no. 1–2 (May 2010): 29–50.
Mushtaq, Shahbaz. “Exploring Synergies Between Hardware and Software Interventions on
Water Savings in China: Farmers’ Response to Water Usage and Crop Production.”
Water Resources Management 26, no. 11 (September 2012): 3285–3300.
Mushtaq, Shahbaz, and Mahnoosh Moghaddasi. “Evaluating the Potentials of Deficit
Irrigation as an Adaptive Response to Climate Change and Environmental Demand.”
Environmental Science & Policy 14, no. 8 (December 2011): 1139–50.
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). “Value of Washington’s 2013 Agricultural
Production Surpasses Ten Billion Dollars.” United States Deprtament of Agriculture
(January 26th, 2015): 1-3.


 

80
 

NASS, 2015a. Washington Annual Statistical Bulletin (2015): 75p.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Annual_Statistica
l_Bulletin/2015/annual%202015.pdf
NASS, 2015b. Crop Value Press Release (2013)
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Current_News_R
elease/2015/VOP_2014.pdf
National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST). “Climate Change Impacts on the United States:
The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.” Report for the US
Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press (2001).
National Resources Conservation Services. “Washington Snowpack: Snow Water Equivalent
Basin Wide,” 2015. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/wa/snow/.
Neilsen, D., G.H. Neilsen, S. Smith, I. Losso, B. Taylor, A. Cannon, and T. Van der Gulik.
“Assessing Risks from Climate Change and Variability in Perennial Horticulture Crops.”
Acta Horticulturae, no. 984 (April 2013).
Nikouei, Alireza, Mansour Zibaei, and Frank A. Ward. “Incentives to Adopt Irrigation Water
Saving Measures for Wetlands Preservation: An Integrated Basin Scale Analysis.”
Journal of Hydrology 464–465 (September 25, 2012): 216–32.
Ochuodho, Thomas, Edward Olale, Van Lantz, Jerome Damboise, Jean-Louis Daigle, Fan-Rui
Meng, Sheng Li, and T. Chow. “How Do Soil and Water Conservation Practices
Influence Climate Change Impacts on Potato Production? Evidence from Eastern
Canada.” Regional Environmental Change 14, no. 4 (August 2014): 1563–74.
O’Farrell, P. J., P. M. L. Anderson, S. J. Milton, and W. R. J. Dean. “Human Response and
Adaptation to Drought in the Arid Zone: Lessons from Southern Africa.” South African
Journal of Science 105, no. 1/2 (February 1, 2009): 34–39.
Onge, Camille St. “ECOconnect: Greater Risk of Wildfires in Washington because of Drought
and Climate Change - Air Quality May Suffer.” ECOconnect, April 23, 2015.
http://ecologywa.blogspot.com/2015/04/greater-risk-of-wildfires-in-washington.html.
Ortolano, Leonard, and Katherine Kao Cushing. “Grand Coulee Dam 70 Years Later: What
Can We Learn?” International Journal of Water Resources Development 18, no. 3
(September 1, 2002): 373–90.
Osborn, Rachael. “Scope of EIS for Columbia River Water Management Program.” Columbia
Institute for Water Policy, 2006. http://www.waterplanet.ws/pdf/wpdb200606051.pdf.
OWSC. Weekly Drought Monitoring Reports website (2015).
http://www.climate.washington.edu/events/2015drought/


 

81
 

“Pacific Registers Warmest Water on Record amid Massive El Niño.” USA TODAY. Accessed
November 19, 2015. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/17/el-nio-nearsrecord-territiory/75933884/.
Pandey, Deep Narayan, Anil K. Gupta, and David M. Anderson. "Rainwater harvesting as an
adaptation to climate change." Current science85.1 (2003): 46-59.
Panjabi, Ranee Khooshie Lai. “Not a Drop to Spare: The Global Water Crisis of the TwentyFirst Century.” Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 42, no. 2 (Spring
2014): 277–424.
Papanikolaou, C., and M. Sakellariou-Makrantonaki. “The Effect of an Intelligent Surface
Drip Irrigation Method on Sorghum Biomass, Energy and Water Savings.” Irrigation
Science 31, no. 4 (July 2013): 807–14.
Pelly, Lisa. “Landowner’s Guide to Washington Water Rights.” Washington Rivers
Conservancy, 2009.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rights/Images/pdf/landownerguide_20092ndEd.pdf.
Perry, Chris. “Accounting for Water Use: Terminology and Implications for Saving Water and
Increasing Production.” Agricultural Water Management, no. 98 (2011): 1840–46.
Perry, Chris, Pasquale Steduto, R.G. Allen, and C.M. Burt. “Increasing Productivity in
Irrigated Agriculture: Agronomic Constraints and Hydrological Realities.” Agricultural
Water Management, 2009.
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=bae_fac.
Redfield-Wilder, Joye. “Early Water Restrictions for Eastern Washington Irrigators.” Press
Release, June 2015. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2015/086.html.
“Reduced Snow Pack and Earlier Runoff.” Department of Ecology State of Washington,
November 3, 2015. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm.
Rijsberman, Frank R. “Water Scarcity: Fact or Fiction?” Agricultural Water Management,
Special Issue on Water Scarcity: Challenges and Opportunities for Crop Science Selected
plenary and symposia papers from the theme “Crop Science Addressing Water Scarcity”
presented at the Fourth International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26
September to 1 October 2004, 80, no. 1–3 (February 24, 2006): 5–22.
Ropelewski, C. F., and M. S. Halpert. “North American Precipitation and Temperature
Patterns Associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).” Monthly Weather
Review 114, no. 12 (December 1, 1986): 2352–62.


 

82
 

Rosset, Peter. “The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture.” Policy Brief.
Institute for Food and Development Policy, September 1999.
http://www.agter.org/bdf/_docs/rosset_foodfirst_pb4_en.pdf.
Royster, Judith V. “Climate Change and Tribal Water Rights: Removing Barriers to
Adaptation Strategies.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 26, no. 2 (Summer 2013):
197–219.
Schnoor, Jerald L. “When the Well Runs Dry.” Environmental Science & Technology 48, no.
10 (May 20, 2014): 5351–5351.
Scott, T., Kohr, J., Lowry, D., Weiss, A., Bosworth, A., Cummins, J., ... & Forecast, D.
(2011). Columbia River Instream Atlas Project-Final Report Appendix D–WRIAs 37, 38,
39 Yakima Basin.
Selfa, Theresa, and Joan Qazi. “Place, Taste, or Face-to-Face? Understanding Producer–
Consumer Networks in ‘Local’ Food Systems in Washington State.” Agriculture &
Human Values 22, no. 4 (December 2005): 451–64.
Shepherd, J. F. The Benefits and Costs of the Columbia Basin Project: Earlier Perspectives
and Changing Perceptions. Agricultural History Society (2002): 463-480.
Sjah, Taslim, and Claudia Baldwin. “Options for Future Effective Water Management in
Lombok: A Multi-Level Nested Framework.” Journal of Hydrology, Water governance
across competing scales: Coupling land and water management Incorporating water
resources in integrated urban and regional planning, 519, Part C (November 27, 2014):
2448–55.
Skillings Connoly, Inc. “Reclaimed Water System Expansion Plan.” City of Olmpia,
November 10, 2011.
Spellecacy, Rona. “Water Resource Planning for the Agricultural Community in Washington
State.” Environmental Practice 11, no. 02 (June 2009): 95–104.
Stewart, Iris, Daniel Cayan, and Michael Dettinger. “Changes in Snowmelt Runoff Timing in
Western North America Under a ‘Business as Usual’ Climate Change Scenario.” Scripps
Institution of Oceanography 62, no. Climatic Change (2004): 217–32.
Sumner, Daniel A. “Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for Agricultural Trade and
Trade Negotiations.” Australian Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics 47, no. 1
(March 2003): 99–122.
“The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed October 26,
2014. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossilfuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html.


 

83
 

The National Wildlife Coordinating Group. “Okanogan Complex News Release,” November
2015. http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/4534/.
University of Washington. “How Will Climate Change Affect Water in Washington?” Climate
Impacts Group, http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalsok2013sec6.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey. (2013, January 10). Scientific Investigations Report. Retrieved from
USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov
Van Wie, J. B., J. C. Adam, and J. L. Ullman. “Conservation Tillage in Dryland Agriculture
Impacts Watershed Hydrology.” Journal of Hydrology 483 (March 13, 2013): 26–38.
Ward, Frank A., and Manuel Pulido-Velazquez. “Water Conservation in Irrigation Can
Increase Water Use.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 47
(November 25, 2008): 18215–20.
"Warmest Year on Record for Washington State." WSU News Posts. Washington State
University (January 12, 2016).
Washington State Department of Agriculture. “Interim Report: 2015 Drought and Agriculture”
(December 2015).
http://agr.wa.gov/FP/Pubs/docs/104495InterimDroughtReport2015.pdf.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Resources Home. Retrieved from
Washington State Department of Ecology (2014): http://www.ecy.wa.gov
Washington State Department of Ecology. “Curtailing Irrigation Water During a Drought,”
July 21, 2015. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/comp_enforce/curtail.html.
Washington State University (WSU). “Irrigation in the Pacific Northwest”. (2015).
http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Washington-Irrigation.php.
“Water Resource Planning for the Agricultural Community in Washington State.”
Environmental Practice 11, no. 02 (June 2009): 95–104.
"Watershed Management Updates by (WRIA)." Watershed Management Updates by (WRIA).
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) (June 2015)
<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/WRIAs/Planning/index.html>.
Wilk, Julie, Lotta Andersson, and Michele Warburton. “Adaptation to Climate Change and
Other Stressors among Commercial and Small-Scale South African Farmers.” Regional
Environmental Change 13, no. 2 (April 2013): 273–86.
Yue, Chengyan, et al. "An Investigation of US apple producers’ trait prioritization—evidence
from audience surveys." HortScience 48.11 (2013): 1378-1384.


 

84
 


 

85