Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001059 <br /> <br />contractors of the bureau. The. bureau would rather control reallocation of CVP water rather <br /> <br />than let market forces intrude. Conservation and transfer of water to a use outside of a bureau <br /> <br />contractor's service area may not be a "beneficial use" under section 8 of the Reclamation Act, <br /> <br /> <br />according to the bureau's regional office. And so on. Regional bureau policy may be forced to <br /> <br /> <br />change as a result of the prolonged drought and pressure from Congress. The region, itself, <br /> <br /> <br />proposed a draft transfer policy in 1990 that opened the way to greater transfers, including of <br /> <br /> <br />conserved water. However, the policy was withdrawn. <br /> <br />(6) Unclear state oolicv: State policy is often unclear on whether. districts and/or farmers <br /> <br />may derive benefit from conserved water, either through transfers or otherwise. Partly, this is <br /> <br /> <br />the "use it or lose it" doctrine. Partly, it is state law regarding the powers of the districts. <br /> <br />Partly it is unsorted-<Jut formulations of "beneficial use". <br /> <br />(7) Data and information l!:aos: Part of the problem is that districts and farmers do not <br /> <br /> <br />know how much water they use. Another problem is less-than-sound knowledge of the effects <br /> <br /> <br />of conservation on return flow users, fish and wildlife and other "third-party" interests. <br /> <br />Some proposals for reform <br /> <br />Q: Are there some steps that can be taken to encourage efficient conservation among districts <br />and their farmers? <br /> <br />24 <br />