Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSJ, November 3t 2003, by John VYjener <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />The question is whether or not policies and institutions that increase the efficiency of water <br />allocation and the efficiency of irrigation would reduce the motivation of farmers to permanently <br />seU water out of the basin. The Arkansas River Basin Water Bank PUot Program was an <br />innovative legislative effort to help agriculture reaUze the highest value of water without <br />permanent severance from the land (37-8045..103, C.R.S.) by facilitating temporary transfers. It <br />was attempted at such an unfortunate timet due to the Drought of 2002 and Jocal political <br />controversiest out-of-basin water transfers (see Howe, C.W. and C. Goemans, December 2002 <br />Colorado Water, available on-Une through Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. (http: <br />www,cwrri.colostate.edu>) and ..water raids'. by specurators who have purchased options on a <br />large portion of the shares of the Fort Lyon Canal, by far the largest in the Arkansas Valley. <br /> <br />Among numerous environmental issuest salinity in Western rivers is an increasing problem as the <br />water becomes more heavny utUized. The Arkansas River reaches 4,500 mg/J of totar dissofved <br />solids at the Kansas line (for comparison, Colorado River safinity at the border with Mexico is <br />about 1,500 mgll and has resulted in mUUons of dollars in salinity reduction efforts)~ Thousands of <br />acres in the Arkansas VaUey are severely impacted by salinization with yleld losses from 10 to 25 <br />percent or more causing yield and profit rosses of tens of millions annuaUy (Gates at at. 2002)" A <br />water bank can hefp by facilitating transfers of water off the heavUy salt-generating lands" The <br />engineering modeling needed to support these uses of the WBPP for water quality improvement <br />wilr be avaUable from Colorado State University for our use in this part of the proposed work <br />program (see Gates et al. 2002; more work is scheduled). <br /> <br />The Arkansas River WBPP is the first water bank with the potential to incorporate and utilize <br />climate information in design and operation. The current IIThree Statesll project (Howet P.I.; see <br />Wiener 2000, 2002, 2003) has provided inputs to the Office of the State Engineer that have <br />clarjfied and broadened the rules for the WBPP so that it will be possibie to experiment with a <br />range of designs and transactions with inputs of long-read seasonal forecasts~ <br /> <br />Use it or Lose it and aU th at. . . <br /> <br />Legally, however, agricultural water rights have been defined by the amount of water diverted a <br />beneficial use, and by place of use as well as priority tor the diversion. If a farmer has a water <br />right to divert 100 units, but had only diverted 75 units, there woufd have been beneficial use of <br />only 75 units, and the water right would regalfy be redefined as 75. This is popularly called the <br />uuse it lose itll problem" It makes no difference if the r~duction in diversion is due to lining the <br />ditch or using a pipe, switching to a more efficient technology, or just not using some 'and; if the <br />reduction continues long enough, it can be an abandonment of part of the water right. This <br />means that there is not onry no incentive to nsavell water; there is also a strong incentive to <br />continue using it in ways that could now be superseded by more efficient methods" 801 change is <br />not easily rewarded and may be penalized, in terms of the individuar. In terms of the rivert the <br />inefficiency ot the past has been appropriated and is now someone else.s water right. If the <br />return flow of water, or water not consumed) is reduced, other water rights are injured. <br /> <br />But, if a farmer cannot benefit from a change, and may in fact be injured by making it, the goals <br />of helping agriculture realize more benefit from water rights, and increasing productivity of water, <br />are defeated, <br /> <br />How could increased agricultural efficiency be pursued? <br /> <br />Colorado now has a "water bank pHot programH in progress on the Arkansas River. Under current <br />rules, this may incrude small changes which currently cost too much, temporary changes, and <br />interruptible supply or dry-year option contracts. The ratter are deskable (Wienert 2002 and on- <br />going research; NichoJs at al. 2001)t but have been sajd to be too experimental for parties to <br />undertake the expense of Jitigation to achieve formal acceptance. <br />