Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI. November 3, 2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />Also often mentioned are (1) ideas centered on decreasing losses in transit or carriage of water, <br />such as by fining ditches, (2) increasing efficiency of application to crops, such as by changing <br />from furrow irrigation to gated pipes and surge valves; or sprinkler or drag hose systems, and (3) <br />decreasing the amount water lost to phreatophyte plants which may consume and transpire a <br />great deal. Reducing phreatophyte consumption could increase water available for the State to <br />meet interstate compact obligations, or for environmental purposes. For the farmer, the main <br />advantage of IIsalvagell bUls is provision of an incentive for water users to increase efficiency, by <br />providing some reward for the investment needed~ The usual idea is that water which is not <br />used in the conduct of an activity by improved means is "savedlt and should be avaUable for other <br />uses. For the municipalities, the main advantage would be getting water without ending <br />agricultural activity and with reduced secondary local economic impacts in areas from which <br />water is moved. Butf things are not quite that sfmpre~ <br /> <br />Why is a change in irrigation efficiency a problem? <br /> <br />There are two elements to consider. First, the idea of beneficial use as the limjt on the size of a <br />water right, and second, the rights of others in return flows of native water~ <br /> <br />If an agricultural water rights holder .tsaves.. waterf the amount not consumed is wideJy thought to <br />be Jost, because the '.saved" water is not beneficiarly used and so not part of a legal <br />appropriation; uuse it or lose it" from the water rjght is the idea. Thus, there is no reason for a <br />farmer to invest in better water management, since what is r~savedll in water quantity terms <br />benefits only others on a fully or over..appropriated stream. The public may wish to invest in <br />reduced non~point poll ution from run-off, but there is no direct fin anciaf benefit to the public, <br />although water treatment costs and environmental impacts are reduced~ So, the farmer investing <br />in efficiency must do so in expectation of sufficiently increased yields to compensate for the <br />expense of the improvement and the rjsk of Joss of the conserved water. Irrjgation improvements <br />so far, therefore, have more or less closely matched changes in efficiency of delivery and use to <br />changes in cropping and other features so that the same amount of water is beneficiaUy used on <br />the farm. <br /> <br />The idea of what is and is not a beneficial use can be changed by the legislature, as it has been <br />in the cases of in-stream flow and recreational water rights. This js a conceptual chal1enge, but <br />not a soifs, hydrology, agronomy, climatorogy and engineering chalrenge. Now] the new interest <br />in leasing from agriculture to others makes it useful to be able to conserve on the farm and <br />transfer some water. <br /> <br />A second part of the probrem, however, is harder: the underryjng purpose of much of water law, in <br />prior appropriation and the limitation of a water right to beneficiar use, is protection of subsequent <br />uses of the return fJow of water from an application back to the river where it can be held in <br />another water right This allows reuse in a fashion which was compatibre with 19th Century <br />capacity for engineering and measurement in a cost-effective fashion, to maximize uses of water. <br />Over timet the adaptation needed to allow permanent changes of use involved establishment of <br />ways of determination of the historic consumptive use of the water right, and other determinations <br />of transit loss and seepage, as needed, so that the part of the water on which others CQuld not <br />reasonably lay claim couJd be sold and moved; and the remaining part left in the river. These <br />determinations are very expensive, and subject to intricate proof and challenge, at substantial <br />expense. Now, we must accelerate the process and reduce its expense in order to achieve <br />contemporary goals of increasing flexibility of use, aJfowing temporary transfers, and <br />accommodating the needs in dry years, as well as helping water stay in agricultural use when <br />des;rable~ <br /> <br />The following description is an effort to identify this problem for ..salvageU water legislationt and <br />increased "water bankingU operations, and an approach to solving the problem on a practical <br />basis. As pressure for new management increases, we may benefit from more clearty <br />understanding the limitations and potential of management options. Economic theory has <br />