National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival (2004)

Chapter: 6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies

« Previous: 5 Water Laws and Institutions
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

6
Better Management of Existing Water Supplies

Increasing demands for water in many areas across the United States, constraints on traditional engineering approaches to augmenting supplies, and concerns over environmental impacts of additional water withdrawals have prompted the search for nontraditional means for procuring new supplies of water to meet shortfalls during drought periods or to provide for more permanent uses. Market-based mechanisms have been implemented in many western states in an effort to lend greater flexibility to water allocation and to reallocate water to higher-value uses without increasing water diversions. This chapter examines water’s economic dimensions as well as experiences with water transfers and other nonstructural measures that could be used to help augment supplies. These market-based measures have the potential to contribute to economic and human needs. Furthermore, because they focus on improved water use efficiencies, they do not require additional water withdrawals and can thus also contribute to viable salmon populations and a healthy Columbia River ecosystem.

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WATER

As discussed throughout this report, the waters of the Columbia River today sustain a wide variety of economic activities. Columbia River salmon populations have important commercial, recreational, and cultural values. The Federal Columbia River Power System provides an abundance of low-cost electricity that has been crucial to the region’s economic growth. The Columbia River is important for irrigation, as it supports the Columbia Basin Project and hundreds of irrigation farms. The river provides water for municipal and industrial uses in the Tri-Cities of Washington. The Columbia River and its tributaries assimilate

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

and carry away agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste. Given increasing demands for water from the Columbia River and its tributaries, it is important to understand how the value of water varies across each of these different types of water use.

Water resources in the western United States have traditionally been allocated across competing uses via legal or institutional means, not by markets. As noted in Chapter 5, water resources in the western U.S. are typically allocated by the prior appropriation doctrine, which tends to fix the allocation of water across a specific set of uses. In an attempt to add flexibility to the prior appropriation doctrine, traditional definitions of “beneficial use” are being reconsidered in many western U.S. states by specifying how water rights holders use water. This requires some understanding the economic value of water across a range of different uses. There is a rich literature on the value of water in a number of uses, including agricultural, industrial, municipal, recreational, and hydropower uses. Estimates of water value can be influenced by a variety of factors. These include measurement techniques employed, the nature of the data used in the assessment, and assumptions made in the estimation. Spatial and temporal aspects of water use also affect its value.

The economic definition of value is tied to the concept of willingness to pay. This concept holds that the value of an item is equal to what an individual is willing to pay for it (in monetary terms) or in terms of what the individual would give up to obtain the item. This concept of willingness to pay is also related to the notion of “demand” and is related to the relationship between the demand for a good and its price. Specifically, a price-demand relationship can be viewed as an expression of marginal willingness to pay for the item (the term “marginal” refers to the value of the next or incremental unit demanded). This marginal willingness to pay usually declines with units consumed. In addition to the direct measurement of marginal willingness to pay for water, the concept of alternative cost can be used to assign values to water in various uses. With this concept, the value of water is defined as the cost of the least expensive alternative to water (Gibbons, 1986). The following values for various use categories are derived primarily from a review of the literature (Gibbons, 1986), in which values from several studies in each water use category were synthesized. Values listed in this section are expressed in 1999 U.S. dollars unless indicated otherwise.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Agriculture

In discussions regarding the value of water to agriculture, it is important to note the assumptions that underlie the procedures used to assign a value to water, as these assumptions influence the derived water values. Historically, as western water was allocated primarily in accordance with the doctrine of prior appropriation, and not by market mechanisms, there were thus no market prices from which to determine its “value.” As a result, initial efforts at valuing agricultural water usually relied on techniques that imputed or inferred a value by comparing all expenses associated with producing a crop with the revenues received from sale of the crop. The residual value (the difference between revenues and assigned costs) was assigned to the unpaid input—in this case water. However, the residual value reported in some studies may also include other values, such as a return to the farmer’s management as well as to land. It is thus important to claim only the residual due to water in assigning a value to water. The values reported in Gibbons (1986) appear to be for those associated only with water, as are additional references cited below. Another factor that affects water values is whether the value is assigned to water diverted (applied) to the field or assigned to water actually consumed (water “consumed” refers to the amount of evapotranspiration, or ET). Since diversions always exceed evapotranspiration, water values calculated using diversions will be lower than those based on ET. The values in this section are assumed to be based on diversions.

Water’s value as an input in the agricultural production process depends primarily on the value of the crop being produced. Thus, a farmer’s demand for irrigation water is a derived demand that depends on the demand for the crop being sold. The effect of crop value on water value is confirmed in numerous studies that have shown that the marginal value of water is higher for high-value crops than for low-value crops. For example, several studies conducted at different locations in the western United States have presented estimates for the marginal value of water for grain sorghum (a low-value crop) in the range of roughly $3 to $40 per acre-foot (1999 dollars), while estimates of the marginal value of water in the production of fresh vegetables (high-value crops) often exceed several hundred dollars per acre-foot.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Although many studies provide crop-specific marginal values of water, other studies estimate marginal water values based on current proportion of acreage dedicated to each crop type at a given location. For example, in a study of irrigated farmland in Oregon’s John Day River basin, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated the value of water for the production of a mix of crops including pasture, alfalfa, and wheat to be in the range of $20 to $48 per acre-foot (Adams, 1999). At a different location in Oregon, Adams and Cho (1998) reported values for four regions of the Klamath Irrigation Project in southern Oregon and northern California. In a region of the project dominated by low-value crops, the marginal value of water across the crops in the region was estimated at $42 per acre-foot; in another region dominated by high-value crops, the marginal value of water across the set of higher-valued crops was estimated at $80 per acre-foot (ibid.).

The marginal value of water depends not only on the value of the crop to which it is applied but also on the quantity of water used by the crop and the nature of crop yield and water response relationships. Although there is debate over precise relationships, as more water is applied, the effect on yield generally begins to decline. Also, as efficiency (the proportion of water applied to the crop actually used by the plants) increases, one expects that the value of the water (or willingness to pay for water) will increase. Empirical evidence of this effect is found in a study in which marginal values for a representative Columbia River basin crop mixture were inferred to be $46 per acre-foot when water was tightly restricted but were only a few dollars per acre-foot when water available to the crop was not restricted (Bernardo and Wittlesey, 1989).

The range of the value of water in agricultural applications in the westernUnited States generally varies from values as low as $3 per acre-foot for low-value crops under conditions of adequate water supplies (no water stress) to values in excess of $200 per acre-foot for high-value crops. Median values for most mixed cropping systems in the Pacific Northwest suggest that the agricultural value is in the $40 to $80 per acre-foot range. For example, in a recent study of the economic impact of the scenarios defined in the Washington Department of Ecology’s Columbia River Initiative (CRI), Huppert et al. (2004) estimated a value for additional agricultural water of $32 to $101 per acre-foot. The authors assumed that any new allocation of Columbia

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

River water under the CRI will be used on high-value crops (primarily orchard crops). It should be noted that farmers will be less likely to plant high-value irrigation crops with “interruptible” water rights, given the risk associated with loss of investment in drought years. This pattern of risk aversion is observed throughout other regions of the West, where farmers with junior water rights tend to favor lower-value crops. This is especially the case when water supplies vary substantially from year to year, as junior appropriators may have their allocations cut off under conditions of limited water flows and supply.

These values are estimated values, based on various economic assessment methods. These values are supported, however, by recent real-world experiences with water bank transactions in the western United States. For example, within the California Water Bank, created in 1998 and 1999 to address water shortages due to drought, equilibrium prices for water transfers between irrigators were approximately $75 per acre-foot. The actual value to irrigators may be slightly lower than this price given that the sales price includes a “tax” to provide water for environmental uses, primarily in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In the Klamath River basin in southern Oregon and northern California, a pilot water bank program created for the 2003 irrigation season also established a price of approximately $73 per acre-foot for the purchase of water from irrigators for environmental uses (this is the value averaged across both high-and low-value crops). During a drought in 2001, a temporary water bank was created within the Bureau of Reclamation’s Yakima Project in south-central Washington. Substantial quantities of water were transferred from irrigation districts with more senior rights and low- value crop mixes, to districts with junior rights and higher value crops. For example, the Roza Irrigation District, which is dominated by high-value perennial crops such as tree fruits, purchased over 16,000 acre-feet of water at a season average price of approximately $120 per acre-foot (Northwest Economic Associates, 2004). In summary, patterns of water values observed in actual transactions in water banks in California, Oregon, and Washington are generally consistent with those that would be suggested by economic theory and data (higher water values for higher-value crop mixes), and they provide general corroboration of the estimated values (cited previously) of water found in the economics literature.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

This information from economic assessments and actual transactions establishes a general set of values for irrigation water. Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court approved values for water in irrigation at substantially higher levels than those generally found in the economics literature or in market transactions. Specifically, in the case of Kansas v. Colorado (533 U.S. 1 (2001)), which concerned a dispute over Arkansas River water used for agricultural irrigation, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted values of approximately $125 per acre-foot (1999 dollars) for water used on a mix of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, and hay (low- to medium-value crops). These values were estimated by the State of Kansas as part of the damage assessment phase of the trial, and were accepted by the Special Master.1 The values were accepted initially by the Supreme Court’s special master in the case and ultimately approved by the court as part of the damage assessment. The implications of the values accepted by the Supreme Court for agricultural water may be significant, particularly in litigation concerning reductions in irrigation water deliveries to agriculture arising from state or federal policies or actions.

Municipal

The marginal value of water for residential purposes depends on the end use and the level of current consumption; marginal value is typically less for outdoor consumption (e.g., lawns) than for indoor consumption and typically declines as more water is consumed. In an early survey of water value estimates, Gray and Young (1983) found that published household valuations of water ranged from $63 per acre-foot for lawn watering to $403 per acre-foot for indoor water use. Gibbons (1986), on the other hand, synthesized three water demand studies and used the estimated demand equations to calculate marginal willingness-to-pay estimates. Estimates in that study ranged from $34 to $56 per acre-foot for summer consumption (primarily outdoor uses) and from $50 to $212 per acre-foot for winter consumption (pri-

1  

The values were developed for the State of Kansas and accepted by the special master and are for direct effects only; that is, they are representative of the effects on farmers’ incomes only and thus do not include secondary effects on the local economy that may arise from reductions in water allocated to farmers.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

marily indoor uses).

In a water transfer agreement negotiated in California in 2002 between the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), water ultimately intended for municipal uses was valued at a minimum of $230 per acre-foot. This price equals the cost of conserving the water plus an incentive to encourage program participation by Imperial Valley farmers. The water’s price reflects considerable effort by the IID and SDCWA to assess the cost of on-farm conservation measures, including systems to capture and reuse water, as well as line earthen irrigation canals with concrete. The actual cost of water delivered to residential users in San Diego will be substantially higher than $230 per acre-foot. The Imperial Irrigation District-San Diego agricultural-urban water transfer is a good example of how conserved water can be transferred to a use of greater economic value and how water supplies might be augmented in order to sustain economic growth without increasing withdrawals from surface or groundwater supplies. As with all water transfers, “third-party” effects should also be considered in the interests of equity.

Industrial

Industries utilize water for cooling, processing of products (e.g., washing materials, conveying inputs, input in the end product), in-plant sanitation, and other purposes. Since water costs constitute a very small portion of industrial costs, industrial demand for water is expected to be quite inelastic (i.e., there is little change in demand with changes in price). The amount of water used by industry is influenced by raw material quality, relative price of inputs, output mix, and government regulations. The cost of water to industry includes intake costs, treatment of water for recirculation, and waste treatment of effluent. When the price of water rises, firms typically reduce intake and increase treatment of water for reuse. Thus, the marginal value of water for industry is often estimated by the alternative cost of internal recirculation of water (Gibbons, 1986). Alternative costs of recirculation depend on the use to which the water is applied and on current processes. As water efficiency of the current technology increases, the marginal value of water also generally

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

increases. Process recycling costs also vary widely by industry and current processing technology. One study of a textile finishing plant (Kollar et al., 1976) estimated marginal costs of $269 per acre-foot to increase the percentage of process water recycled from 48 to 76 percent, while another study investigating a meat-packing plant (Kane and Osantowski, 1981) with an extensive water reuse system estimated marginal costs of recycling process water at $660 to $939 per acre-foot. As water users become more efficient, the marginal value of water in industry rises.

Hydropower Generation

The Columbia River and its tributaries power one of the world’s largest hydroelectric systems. In 1998 for example, the system produced an average of 12,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply a city 10 times the size of Seattle. Reductions in streamflow have important implications for the value of water in hydropower production. It is interesting to note that the marginal value of water for hydropower depends on where the water is in the Columbia River system; the higher the elevation of the water, the higher its marginal value, as water at a higher elevation in the system will generally pass through more generation facilities.

One study estimated marginal values of water in the Columbia system at various points along the river (Hastay, 1971). The study estimated water values for energy generation based on the alternative cost of requiring more thermal power generation to replace reduced hydropower generation. Marginal values of water were estimated at $4.50 per acre-foot at the downriver location of McNary Pool and a marginal value of roughly $20 per acre-foot at Upper Salmon (Butcher et al., 1972). A study by McCarl and Ross (1985) estimated the hydroelectric value of Columbia River water by calculating how much electricity costs would rise due to additional water being diverted for irrigation. The alternative cost of requiring more thermal generation to replace the decreased hydroelectric generation was found to range between $14 and $76 per acre-foot of additional irrigation diversions. The higher values corresponded to the value of water diversion farther upriver, while the lower values were based on water located in the middle reach of the Columbia River. In a

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

study of Canadian hydropower, Gillen and Wen (2000) defined water’s economic value differently. They defined the economic rent (marginal value) per kilowatt-hour of electricity from hydropower to be the difference between the competitive market price of electricity and average costs to produce electricity. Using long-run electricity supply contracts to estimate the competitive price and power utility financial records to estimate costs, the authors estimated cost savings arising from hydropower produced by Ontario Hydro at 3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour relative to the price per kilowatt-hour from other sources. Applying this measurement of value to the Columbia River system, the loss of its hydropower would imply roughly a doubling of electricity costs to the region if alternative means of power generation (i.e., fossil fuel) were required.

Recreation

The value of water for recreation is based on the value of recreational activities taking place both on the water (e.g., boating, fishing, windsurfing) and adjacent to water (e.g., picnicking, camping). Studies of the marginal value of water for recreation indicate that estimates of water values differ substantially, depending on recreational activity, magnitude of streamflow, and quality of the water. In a study of reservoirs in Colorado, the average recreational benefit of water retained in the reservoirs was estimated at $72 per acre-foot for each additional day retained (Walsh et al., 1980). A study by Ward estimated the value of water for angling and white-water boating in the Rio Chama River in New Mexico at $46 per acre-foot. A study of recreation in Colorado estimated marginal values of water at alternative streamflow levels. Marginal values of $41 per acre-foot for fishing, $10.25 for kayaking, and $7.70 for rafting were estimated along one stream stretch (Walsh et al., 1980). The dependence of water values on the levels of stream flow is evident in a study by Amirfathi et al. (1974) of angler benefits on northern Utah’s Blacksmith Fork River. Marginal benefits were zero when flow was reduced by 50 percent but increased to $130 per acre-foot when flows were to 20 to 25 percent of peak levels. Studies often estimate the value of recreational fishing in terms of value per visitor-day. The more fish of a given species pre-

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

sent in a body of water, the more anglers it can support and the higher the total value of water. The value of water for fishing per angler also depends on the number of other anglers present. The value of the fishing experience will likely be lower when use of the river by other anglers is greater (Lin et al., 1996).

Navigation

The Columbia and Snake rivers can be navigated as far upriver as Richland, Washington, and Lewiston, Idaho, respectively, the latter of which is 465 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Combined with barge traffic from the Willamette River, these stretches carried approximately 38 million metric tons of cargo into Portland in 2000, which represents approximately 5 percent of the Portland metro tonnage from all sources of transportation (Bingham, 2002). The majority of this cargo was grain: in the period 1990 to 1998, between 35 and 50 percent of all grain receipts at Columbia River terminals were shipped by barge on the Columbia River system, with the remaining portion shipped primarily by rail (Casavant, 2000). Waterway transportation can be advantageous because of the relatively low cost of transporting bulky, low-value commodities such as grain.

Short-run estimates of water value for navigation typically utilize the alternative cost method; the value of water used to support navigation is equal to the savings of using water-based transportation over railroad transportation, minus the costs of operation and maintenance of the waterway. Long-run estimates include the costs of construction of the waterway (it is assumed that railroad rates reflect all fixed and variable costs, while barge rates reflect only private costs and not waterway costs, since user fees are uncommon). The marginal value of water is either equal to zero (at all levels except the level at which the water flow is reduced such that navigation is no longer possible) or equal to the entire economic value of navigation (the level at which navigation is made possible). Therefore, average values (as opposed to marginal values) are typically used to estimate the value of water for navigation.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Ecosystem Goods and Services

The Columbia River provides an abundance of goods and services that include goods like food and fiber (salmon and other aquatic species), drinking water, services such as waste assimilation, and broader values such as biodiversity and aesthetic pleasure. These goods and services sustain important economic activities, such as commercial and sport fisheries.

Nonmarket Values

In addition to the direct economic value derived from the use of water and other ecosystem goods and services, there is a demand for values from the river that are not exchanged in markets. For example, the Columbia River system provides habitat for many valued fish species and also sustains populations of waterfowl, aquatic mammals, and other wildlife. Fish and wildlife provide nonconsumptive values to photographers, hikers, and others who enjoy outdoor recreation. People may also value the existence of salmon and other species in the Columbia system even when they do not directly observe or “use” them (so-called existence or nonuse values). Although it is more difficult to estimate existence values than values associated with direct use, numerous studies have shown that people express a positive willingness to pay for preserving ecosystems and the species within them. For example, in a study of passive-use values for coho salmon in the Columbia River, Olsen, et al. (1991) estimated passive-use value of $21.80 for each adult coho male that reached its natal stream. Huppert et al. (2003) reported a range of existence values for salmon in the Pacific Northwest of $66 to $268 per acre-foot of water. Although existence values appear to be very site and context specific, studies of existence values for other species and ecosystems suggest that the value of the waters in the Columbia River system in providing habitat for diverse species is high and of importance when making public policy decisions concerning the basin’s water resources. Ideally, when comparing the efficiency of alternative water allocations, policy makers should obtain estimates of the sum of all use and nonuse values to determine the “total economic value” of a particular water allocation.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Cultural Values and Other Public Goods

Another category of passive-use values includes what are sometimes referred to as symbolic or lifestyle values, which account for the economic impacts imposed on areas of origin in water transfers. These values can relate to traditional means of livelihood and to the maintenance of ways of life and social cohesion (Brown and Ingram, 1987; Howe and Ingram, 2002). Farm families, often going back several generations, place a high value on a ranch or farm lifestyle and sometimes “stick it out” even when the economic activity becomes unprofitable (Weber, 1990). This category of values also includes symbolic values that may be placed on an undiminished river or stream. In the context of the Columbia River basin, salmon have particularly important cultural and symbolic values. Although not quantifiable in economic terms, these types of values often enjoy strong political support.

The cultural values inherent in the Columbia River system are part of a larger category of services and values described as “public goods,” which have three broad features: (1) one person consuming them does not prevent another person from consuming them (“nonrival”); (2) if one person can consume them, it is impossible to prevent another person from consuming them (“nonexcludable”); and (3) people cannot choose to not consume them even if they want to (“nonrejectable”). Public goods are not normally provided by the private sector because there is no way to charge consumers for the provision of such goods (due to their nonexcludable nature). As a result, public goods might not be provided at all if left to market forces. Examples of public goods include flood control, clean air, and national defense. Many ecological goods and services from the Columbia River, such as the benefits of aquatic habitat and clean water, have features of public goods. Some public goods are provided in part by the government and are paid for through taxation. An example in the Columbia River basin is the habitat restoration programs funded through annual expenditures of the Bonneville Power Administration. Such public expenditures (to which hundreds of millions of dollars are devoted) illustrate that society greatly values these types of services, which suggests that consideration of public goods should be part of any debates and decisions regarding appropriate uses of Columbia River water

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

and associated resources.

Summary

There are substantial differences in water values across different categories of water use in the western United States and across the Columbia River basin. Table 6-1 summarizes these values by use category. The significance of the differences across uses is that there is a great potential to promote economic growth and increase overall social benefits by transferring increments of water between uses (from low- to higher-value uses). The actual benefits from transfers will depend on the quantities of water transferred or diverted and the costs of such transfers. The following section examines means by which market-based mechanisms might help effect those transfers, some limitations of market-based measures, and some examples of their application across the West.

WATER MARKETS AND WATER BANKS

States across the western U.S. generally began using water markets in the 1970s as a means to address some of the inflexibilities inherent in the doctrine of prior appropriation (NRC,

TABLE 6-1 Marginal Values of Water in the Columbia River Basin

Use

Value Range per Acre-foot (1999 U.S.$a)

Agriculture

$3-$200

Municipal

$34-$403

Industrial

$10-$1248

Hydropower

$4-$62

Recreation

$7.70-$130

Navigation

$5.60

Waste assimilation

$0.20-0.28

Passive uses

Not available on an acre-foot basis

aConverted into 1999 U.S.$ using Consumer Price Index annual figures.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

1992). Water markets and water banks were developed as a means to reallocate water from lower-value uses to higher-value uses, or to environmental uses. The term water market refers to the temporary or permanent transfer of a water right or a contract entitlement for the use of water. The term water bank generally infers two types of arrangements (Miller, 2000). One can be labeled a groundwater storage bank. For example, in California’s Kern County, the Kern County Water Bank provides for the purchase and underground “storage” of water in wet years, with that water then available in dry years for sale to the state. The process of recharging groundwater through wells into an aquifer for later use is also referred to as aquifer storage and recovery and its applications are being explored in other parts of the country, as well, such as the Florida Everglades (NRC, 2001b). Water bank also refers to a formal mechanism created to facilitate voluntary exchanges of the use of water under existing rights.

The rationale behind the water market concept is that willing buyers and sellers should be allowed to engage in mutually beneficial transfers of water. For example, an individual who lacks water rights or holds junior rights may be willing to pay more for water than an individual with superior water rights can realize by using the water. In such a case, both parties would gain from a trade or transfer of water and society would have realized greater value from the water through this transfer. To facilitate the creation of water markets, western states have changed laws and rules associated with the doctrine of prior appropriation to allow a water right to be separated from the land to which it was originally applied. In such cases the right is redefined as a particular flow or volume of water instead of a diversion at a particular location. Thus, under a water market or bank, a downstream user can purchase or lease water from an upstream user. The magnitude of the gain from such a transaction is determined by the seller’s increase in returns (over the value of the water generated from use on site) plus the additional increase in income or averted loss realized by the downstream purchaser. It is assumed that trades will not occur unless they are of mutual benefit to buyer and seller. The existence of a market also allows other prospective water users, such as parties who currently hold water rights, to obtain water previously unavailable to them. For example, conservation groups or fishery agencies may purchase water to maintain instream flows. In Washington State the De-

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

partment of Ecology has created a program to acquire water for instream uses. In addition, the Washington Water Trust (a private organization) has been acquiring water for instream flow purposes. In some western states (e.g., Colorado, Arizona), municipalities purchase agricultural water rights through water markets to meet rising water demands driven by human population growth.

Although most water markets are intrastate, an interstate water market was recently authorized by the federal government to allocate waters of the Colorado River. In October, 1999, then Secretary of the Interior Babbitt issued rules authorizing trading of Colorado River water among Arizona, California, and Nevada of Colorado River water. The plan calls for Arizona to act as the “bank,” building on the Arizona Water Bank (created in 1996) experience. The significance of this rule is that it sets a precedent for states to develop joint water markets. The advantage of broadening the scope of a water market is to create more opportunities for trade and the prospects for realizing greater social benefits. Such an interstate water bank seems well suited to improving water use efficiencies in the Columbia River basin.

Limits of Markets

Water banks hold the potential to increase social benefits associated with water uses, but they contain some limitations, and their successful implementation poses challenges. A key consideration in water transfers is the notion of third-party effects. Most water uses do not consume all water that is diverted. Some portion of unused water moves back to the stream through surface flows or it percolates to groundwater, where it becomes available for other users. Water transfers may disturb this pattern of return flows and have effects on individuals or groups (“third parties”) outside a market-based transfer. These third-party effects can be remedied by adjusting and reducing the amounts of the water right available for transfer. There are situations, however, when third-party effects are difficult to quantify and monitor. Further, parties may be so unequal in resources and bargaining power that some sales are at least potentially coercive. In a study of water sales in eight western states, it was found that 90 percent of the water exchanged through markets

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

went to municipal, federal, and state agencies and that 96 percent of transactions involved these relatively large and powerful participants (Brookshire et al., 2003). Farmers looking to sell water typically are not equal in resources, in negotiating experience, or in bargaining power, especially when there is only one large possible buyer. The city of Tucson, for example, was able to purchase most of the groundwater rights in nearby Avra Valley, transferring water use from agricultural to urban uses at modest prices that left many farmers with bitter feelings toward the city. Avra Valley farmers believed that as long as the city was buying up water rights, the rural economy had no real future, and individual farmers feared that if they did not sell, their neighbors would undercut their price. In addition to these types of potential drawbacks of water transfers, there can be significant transaction costs associated with locating willing buyers and sellers, legal services, and hydrological studies (Miller, 2000).

Damages to localized rural economies that result from large-scale water transfers to urban areas are real and can be significant. For example, seed, fertilizer, and implement sellers, as well as retailers, suffer when large portions of their customer base disappear. Government services are adversely affected in rural counties when tax rolls decline. Damages can be partially mitigated by “area of origin” protections that provide for transfer payments made from urban to rural counties involved in water transfers. There are values associated with water that are often poorly reflected in market transactions. Water in the western U.S. has long been associated with opportunity: areas with ample amounts of cheap water available for development have a future, while those that do not have water face a more uncertain future. Rural areas of origin in water transfers often perceive that they have compromised their future. Cultural values associated with water are among public values not likely to be protected in private water markets. Some commentators mourn the changes in the interior West where agribusinesses have replaced family farms and the vast majority of the population now lives in cities (Little, 2003), and there are fears that water markets will facilitate this transformation.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Infrastructure for Water Markets

Water markets are only as good as the governmental authorities that regulate them. But simply facilitating the creation of markets will not allow governments to get out of the business of managing water. On the contrary, water markets must be managed just as intensively as water permitting programs, and additional skills and infrastructure are required for their effective execution. In fact, water markets must be based on secure property rights or permits, and permitting authorities are implicated in the task of quantifying transferable water made uncertain by changes in uses affecting points of diversion, return flows, and instream flows. For water markets to operate effectively, information should be freely available and transactions within water markets should be transparent. Governments have important roles to play in ensuring this transparency by facilitating a free flow of information to prospective sellers and buyers. At a minimum this involves establishing real-time information databases or electronic bulletin boards that reflect ongoing market transactions. Government also has a role as a monitor and referee in lease and option arrangements. Additional resources may be necessary in the Columbia River basin to help state agencies perform these duties if such markets are pursued.

Governments as participants in water markets need skills and resources that go beyond those required in regulating markets. Where state governments enter markets to buy or lease water for fisheries restoration or other instream uses, state agencies must build skills in buying and selling water, which involve financial as well as ecological risks. For example, fishery managers have faced a steep learning curve in operating the Environmental Water Account through which water to protect fish habitat is acquired in the California CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which is a joint state-federal partnership for managing the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento River-San Joaquin River delta. Fishery managers have been accused of paying too much for some water as well as hoarding water as a hedge against uncertainties that might occur later in the year rather than releasing it to save fish endangered early in the season. The human resources requirements for effectively supporting such activities include staff with backgrounds in business, economics, and marketing—skills and expertise typically not widely found in most natural resources

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

agencies.

Applications

Applications of water markets and water banks are increasing across the western U.S. Many of the 17 western states presently allow water to be sold or leased. The use of water banks, in particular, especially increased during the 1990s. Since water banks typically involve the temporary transfer (lease) of a water right, they can be particularly useful during drought periods. Water banks may also ameliorate some of the negative effects of a permanent transfer of a water right. Farmers and rural communities may thus be more receptive to the water bank concept than to sales of water rights (Keenan et al., 1999).

Water banks hold promise for water problems such as those that recently occurred in the Klamath River basin. A 2002 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Biological Assessment and related operating plans for the Klamath Project call for the creation of a water bank of up to 100,000 acre-feet of water per year. This water would come from groundwater sources and from surface water obtained by idling lands within and outside the project. Funding for purchases of such water would be provided by the Bureau of Reclamation. The “banked” water would be used for environmental purposes, primarily to maintain water levels in upper Klamath Lake and streamflows on the lower Klamath River. The State of Oregon, however, has not finished the adjudication process for water rights in the Klamath River basin. In the short term, water banking will need to rely mostly on water sales among Klamath Project farmers in the California portion of the basin who may have water available for transfer, such as from wells.

The State of California has pioneered several market-based programs and agreements aimed at shifting water among users, with many good results. For example, in response to a pronounced drought that started in the late 1980s, the state established several emergency water banks that were viewed by many as successful at redressing imbalances between availability and demands during shortages (Miller, 2000). For example, one study estimated the net benefits of the 1991 water bank at $91 million, with net benefits of $32 million to the agricultural sector

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

(Howitt et al., 1992). Water for the 1991 water bank came from three sources: fallowing, groundwater, and surface storage. This and other water banks in California are managed by the State Department of Water Resources.

In December 2002 the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) approved an agreement for the long-term transfer of conserved water from the Imperial Valley to the San Diego region. This agreement is a principal component of the Quantitative Settlement Agreement, California’s plan to abide by its Colorado River water allocation (California has long exceeded its legal allocation by about 20 percent). Under this agreement the IID and its agricultural customers would conserve water and sell it to the SDCWA for at least 45 years. Deliveries in the first year of the contract would total 20,000 acre-feet and would increase annually in 20,000 acre-foot increments until they reach a maximum of 200,000 acre-feet. In the event of water shortages in the Colorado River, the IID and the SDCWA would share shortages proportionately. The price of the transferred water between IID and the SDCWA is currently set at $248 per acre-foot. This price equals the cost of conserving the water plus an incentive to encourage participation by Imperial Valley farmers. The water’s price reflects considerable effort by the IID and the SDCWA to assess the cost of on-farm conservation measures, including systems to capture and reuse water and line earthen irrigation canals with concrete. Specifically, price is calculated in the contract by a formula that indexes the water’s price to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s water rate minus the SDCWA’s cost to transfer the water to San Diego County. A discount is applied to the price that begins at 25 percent in year one and declines gradually over 17 years to stabilize at 5 percent for the remainder of the contract. Under this formula, water price is comparable to that of other supplies available to the SDCWA (www.iid.com/water/transfer.html, accessed Janauary 11, 2004).

Four state- and federally funded water transfer programs exist or are being developed in California to facilitate water transfers to the environment. The projects are the Environmental Water Account (EWA), the Environmental Water Program (EWP), the Water Acquisition Program (WAP), and the Drought Water Bank. The EWA and EWP are part of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which is a cooperative effort that, among other goals,

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

is addressing environmental problems within the aquatic ecosystems in California’s Bay and Delta region. The WAP formed under the authority of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPI), is a U.S. Department of the Interior joint program of the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The WAP acquires water for protecting, restoring, and enhancing fish and wildlife populations to meet the goals of the CVPIA. Table 6-2 shows the water acquired between 1993 and 2001 by the WAP. As indicated, substantial amounts of water have been transferred for fish and wildlife purposes, at a wide range of prices.

The EWA was established to make additional water available at critical times during the life cycle of various endangered and threatened species, while not adding additional costs or uncertainty to urban or agricultural users. The Environmental Water Account has a portfolio of variable and fixed water assets. It acquires water from willing sellers and banks borrowing and transferring water from one location to another. In the three years it has been operating, it has helped provide security to users while also allowing fishery managers additional water supplies at critical times. The main criticism has been that EWA managers may have paid too much for water at certain times, although it is reasonable to expect that agencies with limited experience in water markets may make some mistakes as they gain experiences with these processes.

The Columbia River basin has had some experiences with market-based water transfer mechanisms. The State of Idaho, for example, has implemented a water banking scheme. The Idaho scheme differs somewhat from the water banking system managed by California’s Department of Water Resources. The Idaho water banking program aims to help irrigation districts earn a modest return from sales of surplus water in wet years and to keep water in irrigated agriculture during drought years (Miller, 2000). As drought conditions worsened in Idaho in the early 1990s, the level of water transferred through Idaho’s established banks declined (as opposed to increasing levels of transfers in California during droughts). A study comparing the experiences of California and Idaho with water banks thus concluded that in Idaho, “from the perspective of the broader society, the banks did not promote the most efficient use of the available resource” (Miller, 2000).

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

TABLE 6-2 Summary of WAP Water Transactions

Fiscal Year

Total Water Acquired (acre-feet)

Price Range ($/acre-foot)

2001

190,424

60-150

2000

64,995

25-125

1999

232,500

60

1998

91,100

15-700

1997

273,539

15-70

1996

47,152

25-40

1995

101,832

36-50

1994

43,322

50

1993

1,559

34-40

Total

1,046,423

15-700

 

SOURCE: Available online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/wap/docs/summary.html, last accessed June 10, 2004.

The U.S. is not the only nation grappling with the issues of limited water supplies, increasing demands, and environmental concerns. In Australia, for example, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission works in a setting with some parallels to the Columbia River, including an arid climate, an important irrigated agricultural sector, and pressing environmental concerns. In response to environmental stresses on the Murray-Darling River ecosystem, in 1995 the commission’s Ministerial Council introduced an interim “cap” on diversions of water from the basin (interbasin transfers from the Murray-Darling are an important source of irrigation water), which was confirmed as a permanent cap in 1997 (see Box 6-1). Lessons from experiences in the Murray-Darling River basin in balancing economic and environmental needs may have relevance for water managers facing similar challenges in the Columbia River basin and across the western U.S.

Water Conservation

Water markets are designed to enable transfers of water supplies among potential users. Typically, the supply of available water is assumed to be fixed over a particular time period. However, it is possible to increase the amount of water available for

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

BOX 6-1
The Murray-Darling River Basin Cap

The Murray-Darling River basin covers much of southeastern Australia and includes some of Australia’s best farmland and some 2,000,000 inhabitants. Diversions of water from this river basin have increased steadily since the 1950s, which resulted in both important economic benefits and substantial changes to the river’s flow regimes. Median flows in the lower stretches of the Murray River were reduced to 21 percent of predevelopment flows. The environmental effects of these reduced flows included loss of wetlands, reductions in the number of native fish, and an increase in salinity levels.

In 1995 the Ministerial Council of the Commission produced a report (An Audit of Water Use in the Murray-Darling Basin) that confirmed increasing levels of diversions (much of them for cotton production) and attendant declines in ecosystem health. The council determined that the balance between economic and social benefits from water development, and benefits from instream flows, needed to be revisited. The council thus implemented a permanent cap on diversions of water from the basin in 1997. The cap does not attempt to reduce diversions but rather to prevent them from increasing, as it aims to restrain diversions not development. Establishment of the cap marked a substantial change in Australia’s water-sharing framework, and it will require considerable adjustments from water users and management entities in the basin. In enacting the cap, the council is promoting a new emphasis on water use efficiencies, reductions in groundwater withdrawals, and a more efficient framework for water trading between states and between individuals. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has estimated that more widespread use of water trading in the basin would increase economic output by around $48 million (Australian) annually (for more information on the cap, see http://www.mdbc.gov.au/naturalresources/the_cap/the_cap.htm, accessed February 16, 2004).

transfer by encouraging water conservation. In many parts of the country, water conservation has emerged as an important source of “new” water supply. In places where available surface and groundwater supplies are fully appropriated or overappropriated, making more efficient use of existing supplies frees up water to serve new demands. Substantial opportunities exist in all sectors to reduce the volume of water used and to decrease adverse im-

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

pacts on water quality. Partly in order to meet water quality standards, many industries have installed closed systems, which recycle water supplies and consequently reduce the amounts of industrial water used.

Irrigated agriculture has made great strides in increasing water efficiency through means such as the lining of ditches, laser leveling of fields, and more efficient water delivery systems. Incentives for such changes have sometimes derived from legal institutions. The concept of beneficial use includes prevention of waste, and most legal authorities view the concept of beneficial use as useful in encouraging the installation of conservation infrastructure. For instance, as part of the active management areas in Arizona created by the Arizona Groundwater Management Act, beneficial use has been defined as a best management practice. In Arizona groundwater rights are periodically adjusted downward as conservation technologies improve. The program initiated by the State of Washington under the Columbia Basin Initiative appears to be taking an unique approach in that water rights become more secure (i.e., noninterruptible) when better management practices are installed on participating farms.

Conservation infrastructure in agriculture is expensive, and farmers are not likely to make such investments without incentives to do so. Even if conservation leads to better crop yields and reduced pumping costs, the cost of initial investment may be prohibitively expensive. The federal government, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is providing low-interest loans, cost-sharing arrangements, and other incentives to make such investments more attractive. If farmers are able to transfer or sell conserved water (as is the case in Oregon), conservation investment is a more attractive proposition. As discussed in this report, farmers in California’s Imperial Valley have negotiated with the Metropolitan Water District to transfer conserved water to urban users in exchange for financial support in the installation of conservation technologies, and similar strategies would seem to hold promise in the Columbia River basin. It should be remembered that water conservation measures may reduce diversions or losses (e.g., seepage to groundwater through unlined conveyance canals) but that they do not reduce crop physiological needs. The implications of this fact for the quantity and quality of return flows should be considered in discussions of potential water transfers.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Municipal water use is the fastest-growing demand in the West. Urban water pricing, use, and conservation policies can be valuable in helping reduce lower-cost and wasteful uses. For example, a recent study of California urban water use policies concluded that “California’s urban water needs can be met into the foreseeable future by reducing water waste through cost-effective water-saving technologies, revised economic policies, appropriate state and local regulations, and public education” (http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_exec_sum.pdf, last accessed March 23, 2004). Building codes requiring low-flow toilets and other water-saving appliances can make a substantial difference in indoor water use. In most cities in the arid western U.S., outdoor watering in the summer constitutes a large water use that can be affected by water conservation policies. Many cities have differential summer and winter water rate structures, with additional costs levied on customers whose use rises sharply in the summer. Also, many cities have increasing block rate structures in which the more urban residents use, the more they pay. Most cities also engage in public information campaigns stressing the scarcity of water and the need for conservation. The urban water conservation literature notes that the artificially low water rates common to most cities undercut conservation incentives. Elected officials are often reluctant to raise water rates. Some experiences suggest that such actions may have political costs; for example, in the 1970s several members of the Tucson, Arizona, city council were removed for sharply raising water rates during the summer. On the other hand, some surveys have indicated that customers have a high willingness to pay for safe, reliable, high-quality water services (AWWARF, 1998; NRC, 2002b). As long as relatively cheap sources of additional water are available for diversion, there is little incentive for urban water utilities to press elected officials to adopt rate increases sufficiently to prompt serious urban water conservation. In establishing urban water use fees, the relations between fees and conservation incentives should be considered.

Adjusting to Water Shortages

The climate of the Columbia River basin is characterized by annual fluctuations in snowpack, precipitation, and streamflow.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

Both natural systems (e.g., aquatic habitat) and managed systems (e.g., irrigated agriculture) have evolved in ways to accommodate variations in precipitation and streamflow. In the case of irrigated agriculture, the ability to adapt to changes in water supplies is central to this sector’s economic viability. The ability to make such adjustments can provide insights into the consequences of water permitting decisions. That is, what adjustments are available to agriculture if new permits are limited and some classes of water rights (interruptible) are not changed?

One means by which farmers respond to drought is by securing water supplies from alternative sources. For example, in the Klamath basin of Oregon during the 2001 drought, the Oregon Water Resources Department permitted the development of several drought/supplemental use wells (OSU/UC, 2002). California growers have routinely used wells to supplement surface water supplies during drought periods. Continued use of wells in Oregon, specifically during nondrought years, will be limited by growers’ ability to obtain permanent water rights for them. Recently drilled wells are generally permitted for use only during declared droughts (ibid.). The use of such wells during nondrought years will also be affected by water quality issues, interference with previously permitted wells, and high operating expenses. In addition, there is evidence of marked groundwater drawdowns during drought periods. Although emergency wells offer important flexibility during a drought, their usefulness during future droughts is thus not always certain.

For farmers (both those who are able to secure additional water through wells or purchases and those who must adjust to reduced supplies), a basic decision in the face of drought is to determine which combination of crops and fields could be successfully planted, irrigated, and harvested under a changed water supply. For example, acres that would not receive sufficient irrigation are usually left fallow. Crop rotation and selection are important management tools used by irrigators, regardless of water availability. Rotation of low- and high-value crops maintains soil productivity, reduces disease, and moderates interannual variability in revenue. In addition, since water requirements differ across crops, if one of the crops used in the rotation requires less water per acre to produce a harvestable yield, some excess water may be available for other crops in the rotation. In fact, rotation patterns and the resulting harvest and income patterns

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

often continue relatively undisturbed, even in drought years.

During a water shortage, a farm’s water is typically directed first to high-value perennial crops, such as apples or grapes, or to high-value annual crops such as potatoes. Producers plant high-value crops in fields with reliable water supplies, sometimes despite the presence of inferior- quality soil. During drought periods, low-value crops like wheat and hay are often irrigated with reduced amounts of irrigation water or may not be planted at all (Faux and Perry, 1999). Jensen and Shock (2002) have suggested a set of possible responses to drought by irrigators in the Pacific Northwest:

  • Leave some ground idle, applying water first to high-value crops;

  • Avoid overirrigating by using evapotranspiration charts to estimate crop water need, soil moisture monitoring equipment, graphing soil moisture readings, and knowing the water-holding capacity of different soils on each farm;

  • Know the drought tolerance of different crops and plant according to water availability;

  • Implement alternative irrigation methods, such as surge irrigation, on the first irrigation to reduce water loss to deep percolation;

  • Switch to sprinkler or drip irrigation for high-value crops like orchard crops, if it is cost effective;

  • Change irrigation sets when water reaches the ends of the furrows, rather than at specified times of the day;

  • Eliminate deep watering of shallow-rooted crops and employ more frequent irrigations of smaller amounts to keep water in the plants’ root zones;

  • Use catch basins to capture and reuse runoff.

Historically, irrigators have incorporated flexibility in annual cropping and irrigation decisions to help moderate interannual variability in exogenous factors, like weather and prices. In general, producers manage their crops during a drought year as they do through an average or wet year, with a diverse set of crops, flexible planting, irrigating, and harvesting schedules, and an expectation that low yields during dry years will be offset by high yields during average and wet years. However, prolonged droughts, failure to secure operating capital due to lenders’ per-

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

ceptions of risk, and institutional mandates, such as provisions of the Endangered Species Act, pose special challenges to irrigators. These types of adjustments to reduce water will take on increasing importance as the demand for water from other uses increases.

SUMMARY

The economic value of water in different uses varies widely in the western United States. Equity, intergenerational considerations, and other factors suggest that water should not always simply be allocated to the highest bidder; nonetheless, willingness to pay indices demonstrate that water does provide different types and amounts of economic and social benefits in different uses. The traditional doctrine of prior appropriation in the western United States allocate water rights according to the principles of “first in time, first in right” (establishing a system of seniority of rights), and “use it or lose it” (water rights are open to forfeiture if not beneficially applied). Prior appropriation requires that water be put to beneficial uses, but it does not prioritize water rights based on willingness to pay considerations, or the economic or social return, of water applications.

Water uses and water demands changed greatly across the West during the twentieth century. The “New West” (Riebsame, 1997) features increasing urban populations, changing employment patterns, changing cultural and leisure preferences, an increase in nontraditional economies and employment (e.g., recreation, tourism), and a decreasing economic reliance on traditional activities such as ranching and irrigated agriculture. Traditional sectors remain important, however, in many areas in the West, and there are increasing pressures and competition for often-limited water resources. Some of the pressures for water resources take the form of demands to not divert water from streams but rather allow “instream” flows in place for ecological and related social benefits. The doctrine of prior appropriation did not historically recognize instream flows as “beneficial,” but changes in the doctrine in many western states were made during the late twentieth century to recognize the social and economic benefits of instream flows.

The pressures of increasing human population and shifting

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

social preferences with regard to water resources represent both opportunities and potential conflict in the West. Opportunities exist for water rights holders in traditional sectors, such as irrigated agriculture, to sell water rights for a profit to higher-value uses. Opportunities also exist for traditional users to manage water better—through conservation or better technology—and to sell a portion of this “saved” water. Problems may arise, however, when market-based sales of water between willing buyers and sellers result in third-party effects, which should be carefully guarded against, as these effects can be economically and socially damaging. Conflicts may also arise when traditional users are not interested in selling or when traditional users and newer users vie for the same limited water resources. These conflicts also suggest some roles for governmental bodies in helping ameliorate third-party conflicts and in making decisions about allocations between competing users. Many of these opportunities and conflicts are manifested in the Columbia River basin and along the mainstem Columbia River.

The doctrine of prior appropriation has some flexibility in allowing water rights to be transferred or sold. For example, water rights under prior appropriation are often not attached to land rights and may thus be sold separately from land, which helps effect some water rights transfers and sales from lower- to higher-value uses. Water markets and water banks attempt to increase this flexibility by improving communication and effecting interactions between potential buyers and sellers of water. Although they are not perfect, water markets and banks have demonstrated advantages in producing both flexibility and security in a number of contexts. Market-based programs—several of which have been used to good effect across the West—such as water banks, environmental water accounts, and water rights sales and leases, along with careful monitoring of outcomes, would allow management organizations to learn more about the value (or lack thereof) of these various programs. These market-based measures can also improve incentives for water conservation through better management or new technologies, as conserved water could be sold for profit through markets or banks. These nonstructural water management measures also offer alternatives to traditional means of “increasing” available water (e.g., additional storage reservoirs or diversions). Thus, in addition to helping increase overall social benefits of water uses, these measures hold

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×

the prospect of decreasing conflicts over limited water supplies. Water management entities across the Columbia River basin should cooperate on exploring the utility of these measures that can help support the regional economy, but without additional withdrawals of Columbia River water, as the well-being of salmon habitat and salmon is also an integral part of the regional economy. Water conservation measures and means for reallocating water, such as water banks and water markets, should be promoted in a quest to increase “water productivity” and to contribute to a healthy regional economy and Columbia River ecosystem.

As discussed in this chapter, water markets and water banks present their own unique set of implementation and operational challenges. Such programs often require the creation of significant administrative structures, leadership skills, and wisdom in order to ensure that potential buyers and sellers have good information and are aware of each other’s demands, and that there are adequate, effective databases that reflect ongoing transactions and that help ensure fair execution of lease and option arrangements. They also require adequate storage and conveyance facilities to store and reallocate water; capital investments in such facilities may also be required. The human resources requirements to ensure the transparency and credibility of such programs may be considerable. Moreover, the wide range of business, economics, and administrative skills necessary for such programs is often not widely available in most natural resources agencies. Successful creation of water markets and water banks thus often holds great potential to identify “new” sources of water and may therefore increase beneficial uses and reduce tensions; but human resources investments to ensure that adequate organizational, environmental, and social frameworks are essential and may be substantial. The State of Washington and other Columbia River basin entities should continue to explore prospects for water transfers and other market-based programs as alternatives to additional withdrawals.

Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"6 Better Management of Existing Water Supplies." National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10962.
×
Page 174
Next: 7 Water Resources Management, Risks, and Uncertainties »
Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Flows of the Columbia River, although modified substantially during the twentieth century, still vary considerably between seasons and between years. Lowest flows tend to occur during summer months when demand for irrigation water is at its highest and when water temperatures are greatest. These periods of low flows, high demand, and high temperature are critical periods for juvenile salmon migrating downstream through the Columbia River hydropower system.

Although impacts on salmon of any individual water withdrawal may be small, the cumulative effects of numerous withdrawals will affect Columbia River flows and would pose increased risks to salmon survival. The body of scientific knowledge explaining salmon migratory behavior and physiology is substantial, but imperfect, and decision makers should acknowledge this and be willing to take action in the face of uncertainties.

In order to provide a more comprehensive water permitting process, the State of Washington, Canada, other basin states, and tribal groups should establish a basin-wide forum to consider future water withdrawal application permits. If the State of Washington issues additional permits for water withdrawals from the Columbia River, those permits should contain provisions that allow withdrawals to be curtailed during critical high-demand periods.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!