Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSlt November 3, 2003t by John Wiener <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />operated is itself a question that may lead one to want a self-enforcing solution so that farmers <br />themselves can make the best allocation 01 remaining water to the land available~ <br /> <br />As with the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), one would expect the least productive sons to <br />be taken out of production~ The effect would likely be less return flow because the better soils <br />(perhaps also better drained. Jess saline, etc.) produce better yields and thus have higher <br />consumptive use to some degree. So the strict area proportions are not likely to be completely <br />accurate. On a rarge enough scaJeJ that courd affect the river, and again; one would prefer some <br />sort of self-enforced solution to the problem of guaranteeing "correct" return flows or water left in <br />the river. <br /> <br />Another note: taking rand out of irrigation for one year may have different costs than taking it out <br />for several years in a row, in fertility. salinitYt 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 />ffowsJ and weed problems are important to the community, for instance. <br /> <br />Step 2 of the Irrigation Efficiency problem: <br />In a perfect world, the farmer would change the technology of irrigation to increase efficiency of <br />water usei So far, the farmer has transferred 12.5 units of the stored water. 12.5 are "back to the <br />river'~t and 75 units of djrect flow are still available, but 37.5 are .-dueu as return flow, owned by <br />others. <br /> <br />Suppose that a technology with nearly perfect effiCiency is brought in. That would provide no <br />return flow. which js legally not allowed. So, the State Engineer would require return flow to be <br />made up so 37.5 units are --returned... That might mean leaving the water in the river, or it might <br />require some arrangement with the ditch or canaf to provide sufficient hydraulic head to continue <br />using existing systems; and in turnJ perhaps some assurance that others are not going to use that <br />water~ In the super-efficient caseJ the 37.5 Jeft might be enough to irrjgate the whole 100 acres. <br />If so, everyone w;ns. <br /> <br />Suppose a less-than-perfect technology is installed, but using it with the 37.5 units and some <br />number of acres (less than 100) still provides an increase in yields. (People often mention <br />increasing melons 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~) rl there is a net gain, after aJl costs are considered, would this be <br />another case of "-everyone wins"? <br /> <br />The needed administrative step is an agreed-upon way to settle return frow .'due.. 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 in water sale proceedings. But for our present <br />purposes, incJuding Uwater bankingll and Usalvagett can it be done cost-effectiveJy and rapidly. <br />IIclose enough.. to be an adequate estimation for public support? <br /> <br />Please consider a more likely possibility: the farmer with money from a transfer of some water <br />can now afford some increase in efficiency, say surge valves and gated pipe, or maybe some <br />levelingt and she applies the whole 75 units. Because of the increased efficiency (say 660/0 for <br />simplicity), only 25 is return flow, now~ The consumptive use has increased to 50, and return flow <br />is decreased by 12.5, and that is jnjury to others. Again, can there be agreement, using some <br />reasonably cheap methodst to allow the farmer to use the new technique on whatever acres she <br />wants, and dedicate the 12.5 IIdue'l? This looks like a problem of whether the estimations can be <br />acceptably done. (By "acceptableU, we must mean acceptabfe 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, to01 in IIsavingll water with better technologYa The problem ;s that there is this second step <br />required to account for the efficiency change~ <br />