Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSf, November 3,2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />operated js itself a question that may lead one to want a self-enforcing solution so that farmers <br />themselves can make the best allocation of remaining water to the 'and avairable~ <br /> <br />As with the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), one would expect the least productive soils to <br />be taken out of production. The effect would likely be less return flow because the better soils <br />(perhaps also better drained, tess saline, etc.) produce better yierds and thus have hjgher <br />consumptive use to some degree. So the strict area proportions are not likely to be compretely <br />accurate. On a farge enough sca'e, that could affect the river, and again, one would prefer some <br />sort of self-enforced solution to the probrem of guaranteeing ucorrect" return flows or water left jn <br />the river ~ <br /> <br />Another note: taking land out of jrrigation for one year may have different costs than taking it out <br />for several years in a row, in fertility. saUnity, and other farm management issues such as labor. <br />Are there other issues of interest to the farmer or to the community? Salinity and saline return <br />trows 1 and weed problems are important to the communitYf for instance. <br /> <br />Step 2 of the Irrigation Efficiency problem: <br />In a perfect world, the farmer wourd change the technoJogy of irrigation to increase efficiency of <br />water use. So far; the farmer has transferred 12..5 units of the stored water~ 12.5 are "back to the <br />riveru, and 75 units of direct flow are stHI available~ but 37.5 are Uduetl as return flow, owned by <br />others. <br /> <br />Suppose that a technology with nearly perfect efficiency is brought in~ That wourd provide no <br />return flow, which is legalfy not allowed. So, the State Engineer would require return flow to be <br />made up so 37.5 units are Jlreturnedu. That might mean Jeaving the water in the river, or jt might <br />require some arrangement with the ditch or canal to provide sufficient hydraulic head to continue <br />using existing systems, and in turn, perhaps some assurance that others are not going to use that <br />water. In the super-efficient case~ the 37.5 'eft might be enough to irrigate the whole 100 acres. <br />If so, everyone wins. <br /> <br />Suppose a ress-than.perlect technology is installed, but using it with the 37~5 units and some <br />number of acres (less than 100) stir! provides an increase in yields. (People often mention <br />increasing meJons from 450 boxes per acre to 1000; onions may also be substantiaUy increased <br />per acre~ To stay with the water issues, we will not consider markets and competition and so on. <br />and leave that to the farmer.) If there is a net gain. after aU costs are consideredt would this be <br />another case of Itleveryone wins"? <br /> <br />The needed administrative step is an agreed-upon way to settle return flow IIdue" from the direct <br />flow, and dedication of that much (during use of the new system) to the river.. Could that be <br />done? Surely, given the usual determinations jn water sale proceedings~ But for our present <br />purposes, including lIwater bankingll and tfsalvageU can it be done cost-effectively and rapidly, <br />"close enoughJl to be an adequate estimation for public support? <br /> <br />Please consider a more likery possibility: the farmer with money from a transfer of some water <br />can now afford some increase ;n efficiencYJ say surge valves and gated pipe, or maybe some <br />leveling, and she applies the whore 75 units4 Because of the increased efficiency (say 66% for <br />simplicity), only 25 is return flow, now. The consumptive use has increased to 50, and return fJow <br />is decreased by 12.5, and that is injury to others~ Again, can there be agreement, using some <br />reasonably cheap methods, to anow the farmer to use the new technique on whatever acres she <br />wants, and dedicate the 12~5 IIdueU? This looks fike a problem of whether the estimations can be <br />acceptably done. (By Uacceptablell, we must mean acceptable to the State Engineer and also to <br />the rest of the water-using community of interest.) This rooks like one of the common IIsalvagell <br />ideas, too1 in Usaving'. water with better technology. The problem is that there is this second step <br />required to account for the efficiency change~ <br />