Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSlt 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 />rapfd, low-cost water transfer mechanisms, sometimes called Uwater banks", and various ways to <br />facilitate temporary transfers from farm to city during dry yearst either as fong-term option or <br />lnterruptible supply contracts, or jn spot markets (e.g~ Nichols at at 2001, Western Water Policy <br />Review Commission, 1998; National Research Council 1992). These are institutional answers to <br />institutional problems,. <br /> <br />The other"set of costs, however; cannot be underestimated.. This proposal is a response to the <br />need to match rapid and low..cost scientific support to the paranef institutionaf changes so often <br />recommended. In ColoradoJ the need has been shown in the case of the Arkansas River Water <br />Bank Pilot programJ as will be described below. In Oregon, there is an example from regal <br />establishment of a "salvage lawUt following the general recommendations. ..Salvaged waterU is <br />water t-reclaimed from a non-beneficial use, after diversion", such as water prevented from <br />seeping out of a dltch. (In contrast, "savedt' water is conserved by more efficient application of <br />water; these are the Colorado definitions; other states vary due to statute and case law <br />differences; Smith et af. 1996 and see Corbridge and Rice 1999.) The Oregon law allows the <br />actor to keep or sen up to 75 percent of the conserved water, but there has been very little use <br />because the costs of proving the quantities are so high (Nichors at at 2001; see also Neuman <br />1998). This approach does not use an adequate estimation approach, perhaps because it <br />contemplates permanent changes in water rights, rather than temporary changes in water use. In <br />genera', 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 institutionaf and the scientjfic costs are <br />so high when thorough .'proof" is demanded to support a change. <br /> <br />The legislature can act qu;ckry to make regai changes, as it did in the case of the Arkansas River <br />Water Sank Pitat Program, and the statewide authorization, but it may not make the best possible <br />changes if it is uninformed concerning the existing and potentiaf scjentific 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 agree, and even establishing who is injured before negotiations are begun can <br />be very expensive. And, uncertainty effect;vely means delay, which defeats many purposes and <br />opportun ities. <br /> <br />Among the calls for change and uconservation", the lack of technicaf support for some <br />theoretically attractive measures may be overlooked. This proposal responds to the opportunity <br />to inform legislators about the present ability to support some kinds of transferst and to define <br />research and appJications questions that should be pursued in the near and middle term. <br />