ArkansasComments11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSI, November 3,2003, by John Wiener 27 operated is itself a question that may lead one to want a self-enforcing solution so that farmers themselves can make the best allocation of remaining water to the land available. As with the Conservation Reserve Program (CR?), one would expect the least productive soils to be taken out of production. The effect would likely be less return flow because the better soils (perhaps also better drained, less saline, etc.) produce better yields and thus have higher consumptive use to some degree. So the strict area proportions are not likely to be completely accurate. On a large enough scale, that could affect the river, and again, one would prefer some sort of self-enforced solution to the problem of guaranteeing "correct" return flows or water left in the river. Another note: taking land out of irrigation for one year may have different costs than taking it out for several years in a row, in fertility, salinity, and other farm management issues such as labor. Are there other issues of interest to the farmer or to the community? Salinity and saline return flows, and weed problems are important to the community, for instance. Step 2 of the Irrigation Efficiency problem: In a perfect world, the farmer would change the technology of irrigation to increase efficIency of water use. So far, the farmer has transferred 12.5 units of the stored water, 12.5 are "back to the river", and 75 units of direct flow are still available, but 37.5 are "due" as return flow, owned by others. Suppose that a technology with nearly perfect efficiency is brought in. That would provide no return flow, which is legally not allowed. So, the State Engineer would require return flow to be made up so 37.5 units are "returned". That might mean leaving the water in the river, or it might require some arrangement with the ditch or canal to provide sufficient hydraulic head to continue using existing systems, and in turn, perhaps some assurance that others are not going to use that water. In the super~efficient case, the 37.5 left might be enough to irrigate the whole 100 acres. If so, everyone wins. Suppose a less~than-perfect technology is installed, but using it with the 37.5 units and some number of acres (less than 100) still provides an increase in yields. (People often mention increasing melons from 450 boxes per acre to 1000; onions may also be substantially increased per acre. To stay with the water issues, we will not consider markets and competition and so on, and leave that to the farmer.) If there is a net gain, after all costs are considered, would this be another case of "'everyone wins"? The needed administrative step is an agreed-upon way to settle return flow "due" from the direct flow, and dedication of that much (during use of the new system) to the river. Could that be done? Surely, given the usual determinations in water sale proceedings. But for our present purposes, including "water banking" and "salvage" can it be done cost~effectively and rapidly, "close enough" to be an adequate estimation for public support? Please consider a more likely possibility: the farmer with money from a transfer of some water can now afford some increase in efficiency, say surge valves and gated pipe, or maybe some leveling, and she applies the whole 75 units. Because of the increased efficiency (say 66% for simplicity), only 25 is return flow, now. The consumptive use has increased to 50, and return flow is decreased by 12.5, and that is injury to others. Again, can there be agreement, using some reasonably cheap methods, to allow the farmer to use the new technique on whatever acres she wants, and dedicate the 12.5 "due"? This looks like a problem of whether the estimations can be acceptably done. (By "acceptable", we must mean acceptable to the State Engineer and also to the rest of the water~usjng community of interest.) This looks like one of the common "salvage" ideas, too, in "saving" water with better technology. The problem is that there is this second step required to account for the efficiency change.