ArkansasComments11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSI, November 3,2003, by John Wiener 22 Some ideas to reduce the first set of transactions costs that have been suggested for years are rapid, low-cost water transfer mechanisms, sometimes called "water banks", and various ways to facilitate temporary transfers from farm to city during dry years, either as long-term option or interruptible supply contracts, or in spot markets (e.g. Nichols et al. 2001, Western Water Policy Review Commission, 1998; National Research Council 1992). These are institutional answers to institutional problems,. The otherset of costs, however, cannot be underestimated. This proposal is a response to the need to match rapid and low-cost scientific support to the parallel institutional changes so often recommended. In Colorado, the need has been shown in the case of the Arkansas River Water Bank Pilot Program, as will be described below. In Oregon, there is an example from legal establishment of a "salvage Jaw", following the general recommendations. "Salvaged water" is water "reclaimed from a non-beneficial use, after diversion", such as water prevented from seeping out of a ditch. (In contrast, "saved" water is conserved by more efficient application of water; these are the Colorado definitions; other states vary due to statute and case law differences; Smith et al. 1996 and see Corbridge and Rice 1999.) The Oregon law allows the actor to keep or sell up to 75 percent of the conserved water, but there has been very little use because the costs of proving the quantities are so high (Nichols et al. 2001; see also Neuman 1998). This approach does not use an adequate estimation approach, perhaps because it contemplates permanent changes in water rights, rather than temporary changes in water use. In general, the number of changes in water use which would tend to increase efficiency of use is probably very high, but foregone because the immediate institutional and the scientific costs are so high when thorough "proof" is demanded to support a change. The legislature can act quickly to make legal changes, as it did in the case of the Arkansas River Water Bank Pilot Program, and the statewide authorization, but it may not make the best possible changes if it is uninformed concerning the existing and potential scientific support for making changes. If a Change in the use of water injures another water right, it will be prevented unless the injured parties agree, and even establishing who is injured before negotiations are begun can be very expensive. And, uncertainty effectively means delay, which defeats many purposes and opportunities. Among the calls for change and "conservation", the lack of technical support for some theoretically attractive measures may be overlooked. This proposal responds to the opportunity to inform legislators about the present ability to support some kinds of transfers, and to define research and applications questions that should be pursued in the near and middle term.