Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00105: <br /> <br /> <br />A: By and large, no. The water policy which provides the context in which irrigation districts <br /> <br /> <br />and farmers operate was designed primarily to achieve social policy objectives other than <br /> <br /> <br />efficiency (or at least as we view efficiency today). The prime "culprits" (some of them <br /> <br /> <br />law/policy problems, others practical considerations) that get in the way of efficient conservation <br /> <br /> <br />by irrigation districts and farmers are: (1) The "use it or lose it" doctrine; (2) Below- <br /> <br /> <br />opportunity-alst prices of water to irrigation districts and their farmers; (3) Insufficient financial <br /> <br /> <br />resources to implement conservation measures among districts and farmers; (4) The disinterest <br /> <br /> <br />of irrigation district management and boards in conservation, particularly that which depends, <br /> <br /> <br />for its efficacy, on a transfer of an entitlement to use water; (5) In some cases, Bureau of <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation contracts and administrative policies that (a) reflect "use it or lose it" concepts (b) <br /> <br /> <br />reflect the bureaucratic objective of maintaining control over a project or (c) are unclear about <br /> <br />how the bureau would respond to conservation initiatives; (6) State water policy that is unclear <br /> <br />about agricultural water conservation and transfers; and (7) An absence of data and <br />information. <br /> <br />Q: Please elaborate on these problems: <br /> <br />A: (1) Use it or lose it: This doctrine is alive and well throughout the West. It probably is the <br /> <br /> <br />greatest impediment to efficient conservation of agricultural water. Irrigation districts are afraid <br /> <br /> <br />they will not be allowed to transfer water developed through conservation measures. Individual <br /> <br /> <br />farmers are afraid the district management will draw down their entitlements if they conserve, <br /> <br />without any benefit to them. The doctrine has solid, common-sense roots in equity: Why <br /> <br />22 <br />