|
irrigation districts, because there's still no enforcement
<br />provisions there. So, Marti, we're working with them. We're
<br />trying to get the ones that are not so good updated, and our
<br />conservation centers are there. Now, our Commissioner
<br />can speak to it from a Bureau prospect overall.
<br />A-(Dennis Underwood) I'll just add a little bit to what
<br />John said. If you want to look at what we're doing in terms
<br />of water conservation, in terms of a future framework, if
<br />you look in the strategic plan we're going to plug our book
<br />out there again. If you look in it, there happens to be 25
<br />elements to that plan. One of those more important
<br />elements is water conservation. But we're also trying to do,
<br />and John is right, if you're trying to get people to cooperate,
<br />you have to show the benefits many times of what you can
<br />gain out of water conservation. That's why 1 made reference
<br />earlier to some of the improved technologies in water
<br />conservation our willingness to potentially cost-share those,
<br />to have them try it under different types of soil conditions,
<br />different type of water quality conditions, etc. In other
<br />words, working in a cooperative effort as opposed to the
<br />regulatory body. If you're really trying to get the spirit and
<br />cooperation and make it long-lasting, you have to have
<br />ownership in the process, and that's what we're trying to
<br />do, and if you look at that long-term framework that
<br />spelled out this, I think basically six strategies are under
<br />that water conservation. And that sets our future frame-
<br />work. And, like John had indicated that one of those steps
<br />was to provide conservation centers, so we can provide not
<br />only information, but also technical systems. So, we will be
<br />developing a much more aggressive water conservation
<br />program, because primarily that's a way of helping meet
<br />some of our future needs.
<br />A-(Ed Osann) I feel compelled to say a little bit about this
<br />subject. John pointed out certain limitations in the law and
<br />I guess my observation would be, "is the glass half full or
<br />half empty?" I think that the tendency has been there to
<br />look at this and say we can't do anything more with this,
<br />rather than looking at it and saying how much can we do
<br />with it. I think a big part of the problem and why we
<br />haven't had any enforcement of this statute for the first
<br />decade of its existence is that the Bureau itself, the culture
<br />of the Bureau, had a difficult time recognizing the potential
<br />benefits of conservation and efficiency improvements to the
<br />project beneficiaries themselves. The irrigators in many
<br />cases tend to look at conservation as castor oil, something
<br />they were being forced to take that somebody else thought
<br />was good for them, but was basically disagreeable. And I
<br />don't think the Bureau did much for a decade to disabuse
<br />irrigators of that notion. And Dennis has talked about some
<br />promising initiatives in this area. I just observe if there are
<br />weaknesses in the law of the Bureau. The Bureau hasn't
<br />proposed any changes in the law which they would be free
<br />to do.
<br />A-(Dennis Underwood) I was hoping Ed would sit at the
<br />edge of the table so I could push him off No.. I'm only
<br />kidding. One of the things that you have to look at too, and
<br />this has to do with not just water conservation for the
<br />Bureau, if you're really talking about water conservation, it's
<br />whether it's the state, local entities, etc., one of the things
<br />we are finding is the states also have water conservation
<br />programs. And you need to be consistent. The same thing
<br />is when you start talking about water rights, all of our
<br />projects extend from a state water right. We are trying to
<br />work hand in hand. In the particular case of California,
<br />we've signed an agreement with the State of California to do
<br />cooperative water conservation efforts. In other words, it's
<br />not an isolated program, it's a united program where cost-
<br />sharing mobile conservation vans go out and provide direct
<br />assistance to the farmers. There's all kinds of aspects you
<br />could do, and if you really try and get the most for your
<br />buck, you need to be doing some partnerships like this not
<br />to get cross-purposes with what the state is trying to
<br />accomplish at the same time.
<br />Q-By Kathleen Menke, Northwest Resource Information
<br />Center, Boise, Idaho:
<br />I just wanted to ask a few more questions about efficiency and
<br />the incentives for moving that along. I think some of the things
<br />that are working well now are that irrigators are realizing that
<br />efficiency is cost-effective. It can save them money on water
<br />pumping costs and can it increase their productivity. Things like
<br />you mentioned, Ed, about the permitting process allocating
<br />money prioritized to communities that have efficiency programs
<br />in place are good cost-sharing programs are good and effective. I
<br />just wondered if anybody had thought any more about tying
<br />efficiency to water appropriation process. Can that or the
<br />adjudication process basically, you know, can some is that
<br />happening in some places that you can only have your water
<br />right adjudicated to you if you have an efficiency program in
<br />place?
<br />A-(Ed Osann)1 think that's an excellent question, and I
<br />guess my answer is I'm not aware of any that currently
<br />works that way, but I think we need to keep something in
<br />mind and I guess I would this goes to the basic premise of
<br />or one of the basic premises of this conference, and that is
<br />the problems that are created by a strict application of state
<br />water right systems. I'm not sure that strict application is
<br />what our biggest problem is because keep in mind that no
<br />34
|