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 tinlng ditches~ (2) increasing efficiency of application to crops, such as by changing <br />from furrow irrigation to gated pipes and surge valves, or sprinkJer or drag hose systems'i and (3) <br />decreasing the amount water lost to phreatophyte plants which may consume and transpire a <br />great dear. 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 "salvage" bills 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 "savedu and should be availabJe for other <br />uses. For the municipalities, the main advantage would be getting water without ending <br />agrjcultural activity and with reduced secondary local economic impacts in areas from which <br />water is moved I But, things are not quite that simple. <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 limit on the size of a <br />water rightJ and second, the rights of others in return flows of native water. <br /> <br />If an agricurtural water rights holder ..savesrL watert the amount not consumed is widely thought to <br />be lost, because the t.saved" water is not beneficially used and so not part of a legal <br />appropriation; .'use 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 IIsavedu 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 pollution from run-off, but there is no direct financial benefit to the public, <br />arthough water treatment costs and environmentaJ impacts are reduced. So, the farmer investing <br />in efficiency must do so in expectation of sufficiently increased yierds to compensate for the <br />expense of the improvement and the risk of loss of the conserved water. Jrrigation improvements <br />so far; therefore, have more or less crosely matched changes in efficiency of delivery and use to <br />changes in cropping and other features so that the same amount of water is beneficially 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 is a conceptual challenge, but <br />not a soils, hydrology, agronomy, climatology and engineering chaUenge4 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 problem, however, is harder: the underlying purpose of much of water law, in <br />prior appropriation and the limitation of a water right to beneficial use, is protection of sUbsequent <br />uses of the return flow 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 compatible with 19th Century <br />capacity for engineering and measurement in a cost...effective fashion, to maximize uses of water. <br />Over time, the adaptation needed to alfow permanent changes of use involved establishment of <br />ways of determination of the historic consumptjve 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 could not <br />reasonably lay claim could be sold and moved, and the remaining part feft 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~ allowing temporary transferst and <br />accommodating the needs in dry years, as well as helping water stay in agricultural use when <br />desirable. <br /> <br />The following descrJption is an effort to identify this problem for IIsalvagell water legislation. and <br />increased .'water bankingll operations, and an approach to solving the problem on a practical <br />basis. As pressure for new management increases, we may benefit from more c!early <br />understanding the limitations and potential of management options. Economic theory has <br />