Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3,2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />another use, which may be a storage mechanism (a conjunctive use or recharge or reservoir), or <br />a crediting plan so that flows used for environmental purposes are credited under interstate <br />obligations, or used in some fashion to meet that. The farmer Is "covered", the city loses a little <br />but not all of its costs in the arrangement, and the State acts as the user of last resort. <br /> <br />There are two important points about the State's role. First, there is some flexibility in the <br />Arkansas Compact and the others, as well as arrangements such as the CO-NE-WY "3 State <br />Agreement". Unless the State has somehow exceeded all "credit" pOSSible in making up deficits <br />in past flows and storing credits against future flows, this is a "savings account". Future- <br />applicable credits allow for easier management when there is "slack" in the system. If the State <br />had no use for the water, and no way to store it (aquifer recharge etc), the water would have very <br />little value, since by definition there would be a great deal of water and would have been a great <br />deal for a long time. As the saying goes, "we should be so lucky..." Second, the State should <br />have uniquely good ability to operate exchanges, as part of its constitutional mission of <br />maximizing the beneficial use of the waters of the state. Performing this may depend on <br />providing accelerated funding to the Division of Water Resources and Office of the State <br />Engineer, to establish and operate the decision support systems and enhance administrative <br />capacity of the State Engineer. This expense would be trivial compared to that for creation of <br />significant new storage, and it would help to optimize use of the new storage, improving return on <br />that investment. <br /> <br />The point of all this is really getting to the "best investment" - not the most, or the most in a <br />particular place. And so, there are values involved. But among the measurable values, and the <br />easily compared values, economic thinking has useful guidance. One way to think about this is to <br />imagine that you - a member of the roundtable, CWCS or anyone - own all the resources in the <br />basin. How would you want to manage this diverse set of assets to get good returns in most <br />years, not lose your shirt in bad years, and keep from losing pieces from misallocating other <br />assets? Thinking that way opens up ideas like using the timing of water flows. Will that work? It <br />should be discoverable. What else would you do? <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 2 -- Maximize efficient use of existing supply <br /> <br />This should include a subhead recognizing unintended current uses such as the substantial <br />recreational, amenity and real estate values, and environmental benefits from "leakage" (usually <br />conveyance losses) from water distribution systems. The subhead calling for reduction of <br />conveyance losses, along with the subhead calling for increasing efficiency of use (presumably <br />conveyance and application or field application), actually threatens some of the most valuable <br />"uses" of water in the state. Consider the costs of acquiring rights-of-way and then providing the <br />linear urban forestry that perhaps a majority of the State's population experiences every day. No <br />city is without its agricultural heritage, and even the high-altitude towns have a ditch in their past <br />(except the recently invented "recreation-scapes"). This is discussed in the comments below. <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 3 -- Enhance use of existing system assets <br /> <br />This should explicitly include recognition of existing small-scale water distribution systems - the <br />ditches, small reservoirs and canals - as well as the large water storage systems. Too often, this <br />kind of language means "seek better use of existing reservoirs subject to rule-curve <br />management", and seems limited in effect to arguing about the flood space requirements, and <br />dates for requiring that they be emptied. The whole infrastructure of water management is much <br />greater, and the values and expectations built up around it are very important (as noted below). <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 4 - Maximize implementability <br /> <br />This objective should include a subhead calling for increased investment in public information <br />about what can be technically and legally done; the tool developed by Garcia et al. at Colorado <br />State University called "SPMap" is a great tool for planning and consideration of ideas (see <br />