|
January 20086, Notes to accompany presentations and posters 1
<br />Moving Toward Climate-Responsive Water Management -Short Summaries
<br />John Wiener, J.D., Ph.D. <John.Wener@Colorado.edu> (tel. 303-492-6746)
<br />BACKGROUND ON PROJECTS: The inquiry began with looking into actual as well as potential uses of weather
<br />and climate information in water management. Working with an excellent team led by Dr. Charles Howe, in three
<br />states and with some Tribes, we looked into timing of decisions so that forecasts can be as useful as possible, and
<br />discovered a large set of requests for information, which we passed back to NOAA planners. Along with a large
<br />range of potential applications of weather and climate information, in which a forecast could help inform a
<br />decision, we also learned of some frustrations in Colorado. Here, we focused on small-scale water management,
<br />working down the organizational hierarchy from the big federal agencies through the state to ditch companies and
<br />individuals in agriculture-related businesses. One problem was the inability to quickly and cheaply transfer the use
<br />of water. We heard many perspectives on the idea of "water banks", and dug into the academic literature. We also
<br />heard a lot about what people feared could go wrong. We observed the Arkansas River Basin Water Bank Pilot
<br />Project, to understand what went right and what went wrong, and what might help (such as enlisting Dr. Jeff Tranel
<br />to devise a Water Lease Rate Calculator). That led to observation and commentary for the Statewide Water Supply
<br />Initiative, and the Interbasin Compact and Basin Roundtable Process. Basically, we moved from "how can climate
<br />information be used?" to "what are the obstacles to those uses?" The Drought centered on 2002 and water events
<br />such as the leasing activity, establishment of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, and the new
<br />water laws have certainly changed the landscape!
<br />In the later project, Dr. David Yates and I are asking, "What if we get new forms of water management?" The
<br />Statewide Water Supply Initiative Phase 2 discussed the new forms of water transfers described here, and showed a
<br />great deal of serious concern for reconsidering management, as has the South Platte Task Force in 2007. So, we are
<br />pleased to informally report that so far we have been able to follow-up on some of the fears and concerns over
<br />water leasing that we learned about between 1999 and 2002, and we think some can be "checked off" as problems
<br />that are manageable. Some are problems which are far less adverse for the local farming and economy under the
<br />new forms than the traditional "buy and dry" water sales. And some are just hard to judge - in particular, there are
<br />problems for all of us in the lack of information about cumulative impacts. Work at present concerns review of
<br />literature and interviewing on the effects of moving water from environments that are "hybrids" of "natural" and
<br />human-influenced situations. It would help every known interest (except maybe some lawyers) to avoid cumulative
<br />impact problems such as water quality total maximum daily load limits, or endangered species problems. These
<br />seem to range from the expensive, messy, and inequitably injurious, to worse. We'd like to avoid those "train-
<br />wrecks". Other remaining areas of concern include how to design best rotations for leasing, interruptible supply
<br />and fallowing programs, or sale/partnership deals that accomplish the same goals; revegetation or best management
<br />offormerly-irrigated lands; local government interests and relationships of land use and water planning; and ditch
<br />company and multi-company self-organization for water transfers.
<br />The next project will use modeling of agricultural water supply as the basis for thinking harder about what kinds of
<br />contracts look good, and how to use collaborative processes to meet many interests, avoid problems, and allow
<br />greater participation in support of conditions that people want.
<br />So, we are working toward climate-responsive management: water arrangements that maintain productivity and
<br />capacity, and can sustain resources, resource users, and the ability to adapt to what look like exciting times that
<br />have already begun. The various written comments and materials from John Wiener are not the opinion of NOAA,
<br />NCAR or the University of Colorado. Please inquire if you wish further information from these projects.
<br />For review of other water banking and non-sale water transfer programs, the most comprehensive source, though
<br />somewhat dated now, is Clifford, P., C. Landry, and A. Larsen-Hayden, 2004, Analysis of Water Banks in the
<br />Western States. Washington State Department of Ecology, and WestWater Research; available from
<br /><http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0411011> or Dept. of Ecology, Water Resources Program, Olympia, WA 98504-
<br />7600. So far, no source has been found which addresses the limits of what can be done within a sale. For instance,
<br />time-shares are common in real estate, with permanent division of rights to use of an asset, and such things are
<br />common in assignment of rights to revenues and investment deals. Has such a thing been done with water? Are
<br />there any sources or issues affecting creative forms of deals? Some kind of sale may be needed to meet demands
<br />for permanence, but why can't it meet the other goals as well?
<br />
|