9377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONSUMPTIVE USE ISSUES AND HB 1110 Measurement of historic crop consumptive use has become a rather straight forward engineering analysis. There are two standard methods, either Blaney-Criddle or Jensen-Hayes, whereby the historic usage is calculated based upon the crop type, elevation, meteorological records, and water availability. Irrigators have long been able to transfer a reduced consumptive use from the crops which they irrigate. The method of reduction has been either permanently reducing the acreage cropped, or permanently changing the crop type to a less consumptive crop. The latter is especially risky, as this limits the future crop changes that an agriculturist can make. Any other changes which an irrigator makes to the system to make it more efficient does not reduce the consumptive use, only the diversion. Thus, in a change case involving that water right, any other water rights holder would have standing to challenge that change, and most likely, would challenge that transfer (this is the "Shelton Farms" case which we have heard so much about from the opposers). The following scenarios could be envisioned: An upstream junior which would have the "call" reduced in either duration or severity would oppose a water rights change based upon a reduction only in diversion. This potential for uncompensated expansion of another water right by virtue of a irrigator's efficiency would not be recognized. A water right on another tributary to the same downstream river segment, a segment which has a senior call, may claim injury from a reduced return flow, which historically has helped to "make up" the call. This would be recognized as injury under HB 1110. An instream flow upstream of the diversion, historically has benefited from the downstream senior call. would be recognized as injury under HB 1110. which This A dQwnstream junior water right, which historically has benefitted from the return flow. This would be recognized as injury under HB 1110.