Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to,SWSI,- November 3.2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />Some ideas to reduce the first set of transactions costs that have been suggested for years are <br />rapid, low-cost water transfer mechanisms, sometimes caned nwater banksn, and various ways to <br />facilitate temporary transfers from farm to city during dry years, either as long..term option or <br />interruptible suppJy contractsJ or in spot markets (e.g. Nichols at al. 2001, Western Water Policy <br />Review Commission, 1998; National Research Council 1992). These are institutional answers to <br />institutional probrems,. <br /> <br />The other"set of costs, however, cannot be underestimated. This proposal ;s a response to the <br />need to match rapid and low..cost scientific support to the paranal institutional changes so often <br />recommended~ In Colorado.. the need has been shown in the case of the Arkansas River Water <br />Bank PUot ProgramJ as will be described beJow. In Oregont there is an example from legal <br />establishment of a nsatvage lawl!, following the general recommendations. USalvaged waterU ;s <br />water --reclaimed from a non..beneficiaJ uset after diversion"', such as water prevented from <br />seeping out of a ditch4 (In contrast; Ilsavedll water is conserved by more efficient appHcation of <br />water; these are the Colorado defjnitions; other states vary due to statute and case law <br />differences; Smith et al. 1996 and see Corbridge and Rice 1999a) The Oregon law allows the <br />actor to keep or sell up to 75 percent of the conserved watert but there has been very little use <br />because the costs of proving the quantities are so high (Nichols at at 2001; see arso Nauman <br />1998). This approach does not use an adequate estimation approach, perhaps because it <br />contemplates permanent changes in water rjghts, rather than temporary changes in water use. In <br />general, the number of changes in water use which would tend to increase efficiency of use is <br />probably very high; but foregone because the immediate institutionar and the scientific costs are <br />so high when thorough "prooftl is demanded to support a change. <br /> <br />The regisfature can act quickry to make legaf changes, as it did in the case of the Arkansas River <br />Water Bank Pilot Program, and the statewide authorization, but it may not make the best possible <br />changes if it is uninformed concerning the existing and potential scientific support for making <br />changes~ If a change in the use of water injures another water right, it will be prevented unless <br />the injured parties agreet and even estabUshing who is injured before negotiations are begun can <br />be very expensive. And, uncertainty effectively means delay, which defeats many purposes and <br />opportunities. <br /> <br />Among the calls for change and Ifconservationll~ the lack of technicaJ support for some <br />theoretically attractive measures may be overlooked. This proposaJ responds to the opportunity <br />to inform legislators about the present ability to support some kinds of transfers, and to define <br />research and applications questfons that should be pursued in the near and middle term. <br />