7958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I am not confident that ownership provides a mechanism to facilitate participa- tion. According to a court case cited in research conducted by Dr. Lawrence MacDonell, ownership does not appear to completely rely on who owns water rights. MacDonell summarizes the case by stating, ... "the U.S. Supreme Court has analogized the water delivery functions of federal reclama- tion facilities to that of a water carrier. Even though the U.S. may hold the state water rights governing the diversion and use of the water, it does so as an agent for those who apply the water to beneficial use. "2 The threat of future consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the potential for a jeopardy opinion is thought by some to be a significant "hammer." While this threat is real, I do not believe the use of this or any other hammer would be in the best interest of either the water users or the endangered fish. It might be possible to force the GVWUA to sacrifice a certain quantity of water. Attempting to quantify "forced" savings would lead to conservatively low estimates. Consequently, even though the GVWUA may be able to save more water than a conservative estimate, there would be no motivation for them to do so. A hammer may work to a degree, but the most modern canal improvements applying state-of-the-art technologies will not save a drop of water. The operators of the systems must desire to save water in order to reap the greatest benefits in water use efficiency. A hammer may be able to force compliance. but it will not create a desire to maximize benefits. The Carrot It is from this reference that we need to address the "why" or find the carrot for water user participation in water management and, ultimately, wager savings. For an irrigation system which has been almost completely improved through the Salinity Control Program, the incremental benefit of automation is minimal. In fact, the general mood with the water users is that automation is a liability. There are some benefits derived from within system storage and the corresponding ability to meet short-term peak demands. It is technically possible to continue to divert historic amounts of water but to deliver a larger portion to the Grand Valley Power Plant. More power could then be generated which would result is more revenue for the Grand Valley Project. The water used to generate the additional power would return to the Colorado River at the upstream end of the 15-Mile Reach. Natural Resources Law Center. December 1991. Facilitating Voluntary Transfers of Bureau of Reclamation-Suovlied Water. Volume I. Lawrence J. MacDonell. Richard W. Wahl and Bruce C. Driver.