National Academies Press: OpenBook

A New Era for Irrigation (1996)

Chapter: 4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES

« Previous: 3 IRRIGATION TODAY
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"4 FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES." National Research Council. 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5145.
×
Page 124

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Forces of Change and Responses The appearances and methods of irrigated agriculture are as varied as the geography, the climate, and the cultural backgrounds of the people who practice it. But across the nation, fundamental and potentially far-reaching changes are challenging some of the basic premises supporting the use of irrigation, at least as traditionally practiced. This chapter explores these changes and their effects on the future of irrigation. The extraordinary expansion of the use of irrigation in this century reflected, in part, its economic value it was the primary tool used to make possible the settlement and growth of the American West. The importance of irrigation prompted a number of national and state policies to support the use of irrigation. One such policy, originating from decisions made at a number of points in time, was that federally supplied water for irrigation should be subsidized; that is, irrigators should have to bear only a portion of the full costs of their use of water (Wahl, 1995~. Another policy was that a large portion of the available water supply would be committed to irrigation. This was not necessarily a conscious choice to favor irrigation, but it was the inevitable result of western water law, where those who were first to establish claims to use water had priority over any subsequent claimants (Bates et al., 1993~. Under these prior appropriation prin- ciples, common throughout the western states, water uses are determined through the act of asserting physical control over the resource, and irrigators were often among the first to meet the criteria. A third policy was that irrigation should be free from at least some of the controls that might have been applied to reduce its adverse environmental effects; this was, indirectly, a subsidy that transferred the 83

84 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION environmental costs associated with irrigation from the individual farmer to soci ety at large. But times and the nation's needs change, and these policies and the laws based on them are now being reevaluated and modified. The extent to which irrigation has been favored in relation to other values and interests is being reconsidered, and important changes are occurring. Society's desire for a more equitable distribution of the full range of costs and benefits is a key forcing function of change. The future of irrigation will depend not only on the extent and ultimate nature of the changes, but also on the manner in which adjustments and adaptations occur (Wescoat, 1987~. PROFITABILITY: A KEY INFLUENCE At the present time, most irrigation-related decisions depend on farmers' and investors' expectations as to the profitability of the activity and the benefits and costs of irrigated relative to dryland farming. The principal determinants of the profitability of irrigated agriculture are the following: · the overall state of the agricultural economy and markets, especially the benefits and costs of irrigated relative to dryland farming; · the availability of water and its cost to the farmer and to society; · available technology and management skills; · the costs of other agricultural inputs such as labor, capital, and energy; · environmental concerns and regulations; and · institutions that influence how water might be used and the opportunity costs of using water for irrigation. State of the Agricultural Economy Investments in farming depend most importantly on the state of the agricul- tural economy in a region and, to a lesser degree, nationally. The price that farmers receive for their crops is a critical determinant of the profitability of farming. The profitability of irrigation is particularly sensitive to the level of crop prices because both crop yields and production costs are typically higher for irrigated than for dryland farming. In the past, federal farm income and price support programs have helped insulate farmers from some of the uncertainties of market prices generated by the forces of supply and demand. These programs provided an important stimulus to investments in irrigation. Availability and Cost of Water The timely availability of water for irrigation is critical for achieving good crop yields in many areas of the United States. Irrigation, by providing control

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 85 over the timing and quantity of water available to plants, increases yields and reduces weather-related risks. In arid areas, irrigation is essential to commercial crop production; in semiarid areas, irrigation enables growers to achieve much higher and more reliable crop yields and expands the types of crops that can be grown successfully. Even in humid areas, irrigation produces higher and more stable yields than dryland agriculture and can be an important hedge against drought. The willingness and ability of a farmer to irrigate depends in large part on the price and availability of water.) Access to inexpensive water was critical to the development of existing irrigated lands. The earliest irrigation involved diverting surface waters to riparian fields that could be irrigated with gravity flows. Costs rose as investments in reservoirs, pumps, and canals were required to increase assured supplies and to move water to more distant lands. Federal subsidies provided through the Bureau of Reclamation insulated some farmers from some of these cost increases. Where inexpensive or subsidized surface water was not available, cheap energy and technical breakthroughs such as turbine centrifugal pumps and improved high-speed engines reduced pumping costs and contributed to the widespread use of ground water for irrigation starting in the 1950s. How- ever, the high financial and environmental costs of developing new water sup- plies and the growing competition for existing supplies are critical factors affect- ing the future of irrigation. Available Technology and Management Skills The ability of farmers to respond to changing water supply and economic conditions and their opportunities to do so depend in part on management skills and available technologies. High costs, including labor costs, and limited sup- plies of water are major factors underlying the ongoing shift from flood and furrow to sprinkler and microirrigation systems that require less water. The successful implementation of these water-conserving systems, however, depends on a higher level of management skills. Costs of Other Agricultural Inputs The costs of labor, capital, energy, and other agricultural inputs influence the profitability of farming in general; the relative benefits and costs of dryland versus irrigated farming; and the relative advantages of alternative irrigation systems. For instance, the profitability of sprinkler and microirrigation systems, which are capital-intensive but labor-saving, is sensitive to interest and wage rates. When water must be pumped from considerable depths and is applied under pressure, energy costs are an important factor in the profitability of irriga- tion. As energy costs rise, water-saving and energy-saving irrigation systems become more attractive.

86 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION Environmental Concerns and Regulations Irrigation developed largely outside of the influence of modern environmen- tal legislation and concerns. Irrigators claimed and diverted water from streams and aquifers and disposed of their return flows with little concern for the impacts on the quality of water bodies or on other water users. The future, however, is likely to be very different. Environmental concerns and economic realities have already brought the development of large new irrigation projects to a virtual halt. And in some areas, existing agricultural water uses are being challenged because of their impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Institutions rl~he future of irrigation also will depend on the institutions that influence the allocation of scarce water supplies among competing uses. Irrigators control many of the highest priority water rights in the West. In the past the demand to use the water for nonagricultural purposes has been relatively small. Institutional constraints on water transfers tended to keep already developed water in agricul- tural use. However, nonagricultural water demands are rising, and institutions for transferring water to other uses are developing. Consequently, irrigators are likely to have more and increasingly profitable opportunities to sell water for nonagricultural uses. UNDERSTANDING THE RELATION BETWEEN FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES TO CHANGE The forces at work to cause change and the responses to change are dynamic, interactive, and complex. To show that this is not a linear relationship and explore the nature of these processes, the committee developed a simple, illustra- tive matrix showing key forces of change and areas of response (Figure 4.1~. Of course, a two-dimensional tool cannot adequately capture the complexity of the processes, but it can convey the basic principles at work. In Figure 4.1, major factors influencing irrigation are organized into three categories: changes related to the demands on and availability of water, economic changes, and changes resulting from concerns about environmental protection. In turn, responses to these changes are discussed under three headings: responses within the irrigation community; scientific and technological responses; and institutional responses. These "forces" and "responses" do not describe completely the current status and emerging trends in irrigation, but they do appear to be the most significant factors in evaluating change within irrigation.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 87 _ _ ~Response Areas ~ Imgation Community Science and Technology ~ Institutions Forces of Change Related to Water . . Relate to Economy Related to Eav~nment _ ~ FIGURE 4.1 Matrix of forces of change and responses. FORCES OF CHANGE The principal factors affecting the extent, nature, and profitability of irriga- tion are undergoing considerable change. These changes place pressure on irri- gation to respond if it is to remain an important means by which agriculture and landscaping are to exist in many parts of the United States. Changes Related to Water Withdrawals and Consumption Irrigation and livestock uses account for 82 percent of all consumption of water in the United States (Solley et al., 1993~. Moreover, irrigation of lawns, parks, road landscaping, and golf courses accounts for much of the public mu- nicipal use in many areas of the country. In the western United States, withdraw- als for agricultural use represent more like 80 percent of the total withdrawals and approximately 90 percent of total consumptive use. In short, irrigation is the dominant economic use of the nation's water supply. That dominance is gradually eroding. In 1950, irrigation accounted for approximately half of all water withdrawals (Solley et al., 1988~. By 1990, its share of total withdrawals declined to 40 percent. Although irrigation withdraw- als during this period generally were increasing, other withdrawals such as for urban and industrial uses were increasing even more rapidly. Historically, new demands have been met by developing additional water supplies through the construction of dams and interbasin conveyance facilities as well as ground water wells. Opportunities for such development increasingly are limited, primarily because financial and environmental consequences make the remaining potential sites less desirable. Reduction of ground water levels and aquifer storage in some areas limits additional development in these areas. Con- sequently, there is increased interest both in the reallocation of some of the

88 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION developed water, particularly from agriculture, to new uses and also in the more efficient use of existing supplies. Value and Cost The use of large quantities of water for irrigation has been made possible, in part, by the low cost of that water. Consider that most irrigators pay less than one one-hundredth of a cent per gallon of water, some even much less than that.2 The cost of water is a function of the cost of developing and making the water available. There is no charge for the use of the water itself. As mentioned, the costs of much surface water development particularly for federally supplied water have been substantially subsidized. Financing the rehabilitation, storage, diversion, and delivery systems at market rates would cause the cost of water to increase. Reduction or elimination of the federal subsidies for delivery of Recla- mation project water would increase the cost of this source of supply as well. Otherwise, short of a governmentally imposed charge for the use of water itself or regulatory requirements imposing additional costs on the continued storage and use of water. there is little economic pressure on the cost of irrigation water from federal surface sources. Ground water pumping, on the other hand, is greatly influenced by the en- ergy costs associated with that pumping. Moreover, the greater the lift the more costly it is to pump the water. The influence of these two factors is demonstrated in Figure 4.2.3 This example shows that as energy prices increase and the level of the aquifer declines, the costs of pumping ground water in the Ogallala aquifer are increasing. Similarly, the marginal value product of ground water in the Texas High Plains was estimated to be $5.98 per acre-foot in 1969 (Beattie et al., 1978) and by 1977, with the sharp increase in energy prices during this time, the marginal value product had increased to $19.67 per acre-foot in nominal dollars (Beattie, 1981~. These increases inevitably affect consumption, although the degree is affected by a variety of variables. In addition to the increasing cost of water, there is the considerable disparity between the economic value of using water in the irrigation of pasture land and some types of crops and its value in other uses. Young (1984), for example, estimated that, while the value of water for growing fruits and some specialty crops is much higher, 90 percent of the water used for irrigated agriculture has a value of $30 per acre-foot or less. Other studies of the value of irrigation show enormous variation, based on both the type of crop and the region in which the crop is produced. Potatoes, vegetables, and fruits produce the highest values- estimated typically at several hundred dollars an acre-foot or more (Gibbons, 1986~. Pasture, sorghum, alfalfa, soybeans, corn, barley, and wheat tend to return the lowest values from $3 to $30 per acre-foot (Gibbons, 1986~. Such marked differences suggest that water staying in irrigation is likely to shift to crops producing higher economic returns. Moreover, with cities now purchasing rights

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES ~ 3.0 c' . _ c' to ~ 2.0 o 1 .5 o SO no o 89 Natural gas price (dollars/thousand cubic feet) 2 2.5 3 --- 3.5 1 ~ . _ O 100 150 200 1 1 1 1 1 250 300 350 Lift (feet) FIGURE 4.2 Ground water pumping is directly influenced by the price of energy and the distance the water must be lifted from beneath the soil surface. This example shows the relationship between lift and the cost of ground water for natural gas at various prices in the Ogallala aquifer; it assumes a sprinkler irriga- tion system operating at 45 PSI, pump and engine efficiency of 55 percent, and distribution efficiency of 75 percent. Source: Lee, 1987. to the use of an acre-foot of water for $1,000 per year and more, implying an annual value of roughly at least $100 per acre-foot or more, it is reasonable to project that some irrigation water will shift to urban uses (some of which will be used for irrigation of urban landscaping) (National Research Council, 1992~. In short, the changing nature of the values and uses of water are driving changes in the way water is used for irrigation purposes. Indian Water Rights One of the most significant potential forces of change is the settlement of American Indian water rights claims. Tribal water rights are rooted in the 1908 Supreme Court decision Winters v. United States (207 U.S.C.564), which set out what has become known as the "Winters Doctrine." The Winters Doctrine pro- vides that when the United States set aside land for a reservation. it implicitly

9o A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION ............................................................................................................................. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ^s~ compe l ~-o-n~ or wa or--- cash l-n- ensr heal link reran :~ c -ecac -es ~ Her l-m-poor Once o . ...................... . ............ ....... i ................. ... ......... ~se -I-ng~ -nicer :a-l-n~ --n-c -I-a-n~ wa erg ng 1 so c -al-n-s~ 1-as l-n-cmasec ~ -no ^n-zon-a~ or link I - - -. -. - ...... . - -. S5 49 . 1 S tl -so 5 t ---20--- 1111 --- 5 s---~28--- e a--- t---th ~ , ............................. ...... .......... ... . _ ........................ ......... ~ st l - i a ................ .... ................ ... ..... .... ... ........ ............................................................................................................................. t ib s ~ h 4 i t b tifj d t4 ~' a ............................................................................................................................. .............. ~ pl-l-es- mosl---oT~ ,,w,n-l-cn~ a~---al-re 5ay~ u-s-ea~ oy~ olner---pa~l-es~ ~,,,,- ~ a-la~ ln-ls~ ,.,c.,.om-e~ ,.l,o~ De---~ ~ U- ~ ---tn~ 4 t-~ -- ~-- 5 -r ~tl ~ tn~ 4 1 n~ D ................................................................................................................................ ............................ - - - - -. - - - - ~ 0 t- t - t t -- 11 t d-- ~ - t -r ~t --ri 4ti .t 4t -tho - h ~ ............................................................................................................................. ............... -. -. - - -. - - - - fi st 5 i tes ~ 5e s ith--the ~O 5 41 5~ 5 ~--n nt- o ~d s~ ............................... ... ........ ................................................................................. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................................................................................................ ~ ae i i o i 1 ile t 4 4 e ........................................... ' ~* ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I~ n--lne-- l -~UU$- --man-y--l-nOlan -1-rlDe$-en-le-re0--ln-10--89-reemer 1S--Wlln--ln-e--U-.-~ --90verr .. ............................ ~i i i ~ n -e-nt---wnere~ In-ey~ ag-ree0~ to~ l-lve~ o-n~ rese* mI-o-n-s~ l---ne~ p-rl-n-cl-pl-es~ oT~ Inese~ rese* a~ ....................................... .. ... ............... - , -. i., j - -., - i i :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ti - r s ed-- t-th- e x $s-1 d-ed--a a S ifi all -- he- --th-s~ - ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ...... ... ... ... - 1 d t sid tj ih ~1 d f ............................................................................................................................. ................................................... *.~ ~i ~ peop-le~ *-n~ l--u *~-,~ ln-e~ **---s~ ~-u-p-reme~ ~o-u-~ co-n-TI-=ea~ ln-l-s~ u-n-aemIana-l-ng~ ln~ lne~ ............................................................................................................................. .............. i - - - - - . - - - i i _, - - ............................................................................................................................. ............... -. - - - - - - - - - - -. -. - - - - -. - - - - ~ li-sh- d---th --U it d--$t t --i- Ii- itl -- d--- 1- -- i-th--t*- --1 d ~ffi i t- t ~ ................................ ' ............... -. - - -. -. -. - - - - - - ~ fulfil-l- ihe-- u ses--of--th-e-- e e ti .~ Tne~ ou-~-- e Ii en--tnese-- ~ nts-- $--n I .......................................... ........ ............................................................................ .................................................................................................. .................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................... i i g 1 t ii1 . ... ~-~ui ~---I-ndi-a r $ i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ......................... - -.- , , - - - --- - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - -. - - -- j Fo ea s these s Io IghtS ~ ~ IIhle tl 1 1 e `o t ID s U e e , ................... - - - -. - -. - - - - - - - - ~ ised---Wi- t --ri- -hts--- s d--l-iNl --threat--t --- t-he --- s ~ B t---i ~t-- s---t i-be ~ ............................................................................................................................. h b t ~ dd 1 th i d i ............................................................................................................................. ~ ana~ w-l-nle-rs~ rl-g-nl,s~ l-n~ compell ilQn~ ~elll-l-ng~ nese~ waTer~ ~-g-n-Is~ cl-a-l-ms~ ls~ a~ e-men~ ................................................................................................................................ ................. - - i , - - oo s Cnanenge, ano negotiations are noe~ l n man areas oringing man :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: reserved enough water to accomplish the purpose of the reservation, which is to provide a homeland for Indian people. The date of the water right is the date of the treaty between the tribe and the United States. In most instances, tribal water rights predate all other water users, and in the context of the prior appropriation doctrine are senior to all other users. The volume of water involved in settling Indian water rights claims will be important in shaping the future of the western United States, where secure access to water is the key to many economic activities.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 91 The implementation of the tribal water rights, that is, the change from "paper water rights" to "wet water," has only recently begun in earnest. Tribal water use is now key to tribal economic development and is at the center of much of the current debate regarding the use, management, and development of water on major river systems such as the Colorado, Columbia, Snake, and Missouri. In a 1963 case, Arizona v. California, the Supreme Court established the standard of measurement for an Indian water right as the amount of "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) on the reservation. As tribes enter the water rights adjudication process, calculations determining the quantity of water are based on a physical, economic, and technical evaluation of historic and proposed future irrigation projects for all of the reservation's PIA. Other water needs, including fisheries, wildlife, domestic, municipal, and industrial uses, usually add to the total tribal water claim. The potential size of tribal water rights claims should not be underestimated. For example, water rights claims of the Missouri River basin tribes could total more than 19 million acre-feet, or approximately 40 percent of the average annual flow of the Missouri (Mad Sose,1993~. As of 1995, there are more than 60 cases in courts involving the resolution of Indian water rights claims. The total amount of water potentially involved in these claims ranges from 45 million to over 60 million acre-feet (Colby et al., 1992~. As an alternative to litigation, the Depart- ment of Interior is actively engaged in 17 water rights settlement negotiations and is implementing another 13 settlements. Fewer than 10 of these efforts appear close to settlement. Table 4.1 presents settlements enacted in the last 10 years involving a total of 4.6 million acre feet of water (Colby et al., 1992~. Notwithstanding the PIA standard, recent national trends in the irrigation industry, the operations, maintenance, and replacement costs, and land tenure issues in Indian country continue to plague the use of Indian water for agriculture. Although tribes have expressed significant interest in water marketing, institu- tional barriers, state resistance, and the congressional authorization required for the interbasin and interstate marketing of Indian water remain as barriers to firmly identifying the amount of Indian water available for agricultural, instream, or other purposes. In combination with tribal water rights, many tribes have treaty rights to instream flows for fishery resources, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The quantification, exercise, and management of these rights may profoundly influ- ence the future of irrigation by Indians and non-Indians alike. A Changing Economy The rapid and extensive development that occurred in the western part of the United States during the second half of the nineteenth century could not have happened without irrigation. Miners and the settlements that grew up in support of mining needed food. The only way crops can only be grown reliably in most

92 ca 4= o 4= ._1 ~ ~ O' ~ ¢ 4= .~ ·_1 Em o 4= 4= o be A ¢ so EM · _1 ca _' ca o 4= 4= e ,, O ,, ~E y ~c ° ~ y a y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~C a ~ ~ A ~· ~ ~ G ~ -o f b ~ s B ; 9 =~ ~ ~ o 3 ~D ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ° ca F¢ ~ () All blat ~ ~ O I ~ 4) ~ ~ O ' · ~ ~C) 0 0 c ~0 0 0 ~0 a ~0 0 ~0 0 0 ~0 O O ~O O ~O O C ~O ~O O O 00 VC) ~1 ~O C-1 a~ O O O ~O o ~O ~ ~>0 ·- ~Z _= · ~= - ~= m ~_ oo r ~ ~·, , ' 0 , a ~ D ~ f Y ~ ! ~.- ~- 3 E ~(<, ~1,, vC} ~· .

5 3 ~, ~ b~-a, S~= ~ c ' ~ e ' ~ . C D E E _ b D S a O O 9 e , ~ E ~ = '. ~ ~- , E o ~c C a ~C ~ ~ ~· D e ~ D ~B ~ · ~ oo ~o o ~o o oo ~o o ~o ~o o o ~o oo ~a ~oo ~ o .o ~o ° ~° ~3 . _1 0 S ~ z ~¢ ~¢ ~z ca ca ·_1 ·0 o o .= ~ ° E _ ~e _ O ~ ~0 [U z cd O c' c~ a~ a~ c ~ == c . , ~ c - , ~3 ~. , ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~C, (<, ~ ~e ~ ' - ., ,_~ ~ ~, O D '~0 ~ ~= ~ ca ~ ~ O ~ ° o O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ c ~ ~ ~ O O ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ O C) - ~L) ~ ^ O ~ ~ O 5~I' ~ ,~ ~ O ~i 5 a ~ _ ~ ~: ~ ~ ^= ~ ~ ~ cd 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ·_1 C;~ ,~ 00 0 G · 0 t ~c E b ti ca ca ~a~ _ a~ s~ o s~ o ca ~ o ·0 C) .. o s~ o

94 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION parts of the West is with irrigation. Irrigated agriculture soon evolved beyond its role in support of mining and became a principal means by which the West itself could be settled. In this century, irrigated agriculture at least in most loca- tions moved beyond its function as an agent for the settlement of the West to one of production farming. Today, irrigated agriculture is among the leading revenue-generating businesses in the western states. Moreover, agriculture in other parts of the United States is increasing its use of irrigation, including supple- mental irrigation, and irrigation of lawns, parks, and other greenways in urban areas, particularly in more arid regions. By 2020 the world population will reach over 8 billion from the current 5.6 billion people. The increase in population must be matched with an increase in food and fiber production. The United States has the infrastructure to increase production and to market its increased production internationally. International marketing requires stable production which can be achieved by the expansion of irrigated agriculture, especially in the Southeast with high-value crops. Other economic factors, however, run counter to this long-term expansion of irrigation. Agriculture itself is in the midst of some profound changes, with direct ramifications for the share that will remain irrigation-based. For instance, trading of agricultural products among nations in the global economy is an in- creasing practice. Although international trade will create potential new markets for products, it also will increase competition in domestic markets. Increased market competition puts pressure on farmers to grow relatively high-value crops as they look for ways to increase profits. But high-value crops often carry high risks as well and demand better management and business skills. Another appar- ent trend is a move toward vertical integration with a more corporate approach to production, processing, and marketing. In addition, the long-standing trend to- ward fewer and larger farms seems likely to continue as growers seek economies of scale. The long-held views that agricultural production requires substantial govern- mental intervention and that the price of certain crops should be actively sup- ported are increasingly being questioned. International trade agreements typi- cally discourage governmental supports. More importantly, the public support for and financial capacity of the United States to continue farm support pro- grams at least at recent levels are in doubt. Some crops grown with irrigation, such as corn, peanuts, cotton, and rice, are important beneficiaries of existing price supports. Moreover, lower-value, water-intensive crops, such as alfalfa, and pasture account for the lion's share of agricultural water consumption and receive subsidized water. These are policies that many find increasingly hard to justify. Zilberman (1994) has suggested that income and price support policies will matter less in the future, international markets will play a bigger role, and agricultural policies will be directed more to maintaining environmental quality. He also has suggested that many irrigators would prosper in a global setting because many of the higher-value crops that the United States is likely to have a

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 95 relative advantage in producing are irrigated. Much irrigated agriculture will be in a position to compete effectively for limited water supplies and take advantage of technological advances. With conditions expected to be even more dynamic in the future, there will be opportunities for the innovative farmer, but also high . · . economic nsK. Tribal water could be an important source of water for non-Indian irrigators. Where tribes have not yet put their water rights to use, this water often is used by non-Indian irrigators in the same basin. As tribal water rights are quantified through negotiation or litigation, tribes will retain considerable authority to deter- mine the use and administration of tribal water on the reservation (Marx and Williams, 1995~. While many tribes are not expected to develop new irrigated lands, the ability of tribes to market water could mean that non-Indian irrigators will have to compensate tribes for their continued use of tribal water. While tribal water marketing may not result in a reduction in water available for irriga- tion, it does enable the economic development of the tribal community through the generation of badly needed resources. American Indians and irrigators- historically not the best of friends stand at the threshold of a new alliance that could be collaborative and mutually beneficial. Changes Related to the Environment As stated earlier, the principal environmental issues relevant to irrigation are those concerned with the protection and management of water supplies and water quality. In the last 25 years the public has become increasingly conscious of and concerned about environmental quality, endangered species, public health and safety, food safety, and the associated impacts of agricultural irrigation in these areas. Environmental issues related to water consumption and water quality in landscape irrigation are also beginning to receive greater attention. Policymakers and regulators at the federal and state levels have begun to respond to environ- mental concerns about irrigation, as evidenced by various efforts to control nonpoint sources of water pollution, water policies designed to protect instream flows, continuing restrictions on the types and application of agricultural pesti- cides, and other measures. Other environmental issues pertain to land use in agriculture generally for instance, practices that diminish terrestrial habitats or otherwise impair habitat quality. Urban and suburban expansion into rural, agri- cultural regions has also given rise to conflicts over land use, waste disposal, recreational access, chemical use, and other issues. The relative significance of the numerous environmental issues faced by irrigators varies from region to region, but the nature of environmental issues confronting irrigation generally is the same coast to coast. The most serious problems exist in the West because of the large number of dams on originally free-flowing rivers and the amounts of water diverted. The practice of irrigated agriculture has profoundly transformed the natural

96 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION environment wherever it has occurred. Water development for irrigation has permanently altered aquatic ecosystems rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands- and the species that depend on them (Wilcox and Bean, 1994~. Agricultural development accounted for 87 percent of all wetlands lost between 1950 and 1970 and 54 percent of those lost between the 1970s and mid-1980s (U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, 1994~. Dam construction, water diversions, and ground water pumping for irrigation and other purposes have dewatered segments of some rivers, blocked the migration of anadromous fish, changed the natural hydrographs and temperatures of rivers, and damaged or destroyed riparian habi- tats. Runoff from agriculture including irrigation is now considered to be one of the largest sources of water pollution in rivers, lakes, and estuaries nationwide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994~. At the same time, irrigation can provide important environmental benefits. With the construction of major dams, seasonal streamflows can be extended and water quality managed. Reservoirs that serve irrigation also provide flood con- trol and recreational benefits, although there can be conflicts between reservoir operation for irrigation and for other uses. The growth of phreatophytes along ditches and the borders of irrigated fields may provide valuable habitat for wild- life as well as aesthetic benefits. Irrigated fields enhance ground water recharge and provide open space true greenbelts during the summer growing season- often in contrast to the sparse growth on unwatered lands in many arid regions. The landscape industry provides aesthetic, recreational, and localized cooling benefits with golf courses, public landscaping, and private lawns. In general, environmental policies and regulation affect irrigation by (1) restricting access to water resources, (2) restricting various activities that gener- ate pollution or otherwise degrade environmental resource values, and (3) in- creasing the cost of doing business. Examples of relevant policy debates include continuing conflicts over implementation and reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act and debates over the need for direct regulation of agricultural nonpoint-source pollution (Young and Congdon, 1994~. Still, irrigated agriculture has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to adapt to external stresses through changes in irrigation practices and technologies, scientific inno- vations, and economic diversity, and, to a limited extent, institutional change at the local and regional levels. The ultimate impact of environmental factors on irrigation will depend on how laws and policies are implemented and, more significantly, on how the agricultural community generally, and irrigators indi- vidually, respond to the environmental concerns of society at large. Irrigators are likely to face more stringent requirements for protection of water quality in the future. The effect on irrigation of having to comply with water quality standards will be manifest as higher costs of water management and application (through the use of more efficient irrigation technologies and prac- tices and improved irrigation scheduling). In some cases, farmers may choose to alter irrigation practices substantially or to retire lands that contribute signifi

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 97 cantly to pollution loads. The retirement of land as a pollution control option could be attractive where farmers are permitted by state law and/or federal law to market the unused portions of their water rights (Staving and Willey, 1983~. What these requirements will look like and how much flexibility irrigators will have in determining the appropriate pollution control options for their circum- stances will be determined to some extent by the manner in which irrigated agriculture acts in shaping environmental policies and programs. The landscape irrigation industry also contributes to water quality and quan- tity problems and may face increased regulations or other constraints as water pollution control measures are debated. Soil erosion end runoff during urban construction and the potential for leaching and runoff of nutrients and pesticides from established sites can lead to impacts on fish and wildlife habitats and aquatic systems generally through sediment, chemical, and thermal pollution of surface waters and pollution of ground water. These impacts are most likely to be addressed through the urban stormwater and combined sewer overflow provi- sions of the Clean Water Act. The environmental issues confronting the irrigation industry have implica- tions beyond questions of short-term economic return; they have to do with longer-term issues of sustainability. The ultimate effect of environmental regula- tion on irrigation will depend on the willingness of irrigators themselves to work with other interest groups and form new alliances in a changed political and economic context. Management options available to irrigators, such as changes in crops, investments in technologic improvements, water transfers, and conjunc- tive use, will be valuable for meeting environmental requirements and will en- hance the sustainability of agriculture in the long term. RESPONSES TO CHANGE Forces of change are profoundly influencing irrigation. They are evoking responses that are shaping the future of irrigation in important ways. Many responses are positive active steps taken to ameliorate problems and facilitate innovation. Some, however, are negative resistance to change, whether shown by individuals, water agencies, or legislative bodies. As is to be expected, these forces sometimes conflict, with variable results. To gain perspective on the responses to change, the following sections explore the key response areas iden- tified in the matrix provided in Figure 4.1. The Irrigation Community Irrigation in the United States has a rich history of developing internally initiated, innovative approaches to meet its needs. In the mid-to-late 1800s, for example, farmers and land developers in the western states organized themselves in a remarkable burst of creative, collective energy to construct water diversion

98 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION and delivery systems, to create rules and procedures governing the use of water, and to manage the systems they had created. The irrigation systems and the mutual ditch companies and irrigation districts established at that time still exist, for the most part, and still provide irrigation water to millions of acres of crop- land. The federal reclamation system, which arose in part because many private developments went bankrupt, became important in this century and made pos- sible the expansion of irrigated agriculture throughout the West. Maass and Anderson (1978) captured well the remarkable human ingenuity reflected in the early development of irrigated agriculture in the United States. There were obvious economies of scale to be gained by constructing a large central canal or ditch through which water initially would be diverted at an upstream point on a river and then contoured with the topography of the land to encompass as much irrigable land as possible. Water then could be delivered to these lands "under" the canal through branching ditches known as laterals. Some of the large canals were constructed by companies seeking to profit from the sale of lands made markedly more valuable because they could be irrigated. Most of the early irrigation systems in the western states, however, were constructed by entities created by collections of individual landowners intending to irrigate the land. The challenges were many: inadequate financing, limited engineering capa- bilities, primitive earth-moving and other construction techniques, periodic floods that washed out diversion structures, highly variable flows of water that often were inadequate in the critical late summer months, relatively undeveloped legal rules governing rights to use water, and little or no enforcement of the rules that did exist. Today the irrigation community faces challenges every bit as difficult and important as those encountered in the nineteenth century West. It is faced with a changing agricultural economy in which its economic position is less clear than at any time since perhaps the 1930s. It is faced with changing economies in some of the areas in which it has traditionally operated, changes that make irrigation a relatively less important part of the economic structure of those areas. At the same time, it is faced with almost certain reductions or even losses of some benefits it has enjoyed as a matter of public policy, such as subsidized crop prices and subsidized water. There is little the irrigation sector can do by itself to influence the larger economic forces at work, but there is much it can do to effectively respond to those forces. As mentioned, the irrigated agricultural community is faced with much the same situation as is facing agriculture generally. Crop markets are becoming more competitive. Inevitably, such competition forces irrigation grow- ers into a more businesslike approach to agriculture. Much of irrigated agriculture already is operated in a highly efficient, busi- nesslike manner, but economic pressures can be expected to accelerate this busi- nesslike approach. Some growers will become processors and some will be major

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 99 marketers. Crop selection will become even more price sensitive than in the past, and the pressure to keep costs down will continue to increase (Woolf et al., 1994~. It is tempting to predict that what might be called "lifestyle" irrigated agri- culture farming at a scale small enough to be operated largely or completely by family members, growing largely "staple" crops such as cotton, corn, alfalfa, or wheat, earning just enough to stay in farming will not be able to survive in the changing economy. Almost certainly, some irrigators operating at the margin will not, and others will choose to leave irrigation for other reasons. There remains, however, a place in agriculture for this kind of farming. Despite the increasing technical and financial aspects of agribusiness, farming continues to be a way of life for many. It is one of the few means by which people can support themselves in a rural setting, especially in arid areas. As long as a living can be made, however modest, some will continue to pursue that option. Competitive market pressures affecting traditional practices of irrigated agri- culture also affect how irrigators look at their water supplies. Until recently at least, water has not been an especially costly input, and most irrigators have had little reason to think much about the economic advantages of using their water supplies differently including conservation or leasing or selling the water to other users. Particularly in places where the cost of water has increased measurably, irrigators are actively pursuing ways to use less water. In Texas, for example, the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No.1 instituted a series of programs beginning in the 1950s that have reduced the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer. Net depletion of ground-water-supplied irrigation of 5.5 million acres of land within a 15-county section of north Texas has decreased from an annual average of more than a million and a half acre-feet between 1965 and 1971 to an annual average net depletion of under 200,000 acre-feet between 1986 and 1991 (Wyatt, 1991~. Initially, the district focused on persuading farmers to convert open ditches into pipes and to construct tailwater return systems. Beginning in 1978 the district initiated on-farm irrigation efficiency evaluations that included an analysis of well pumping efficiencies, an analysis of soil types and water holding characteristics, and an analysis of sprinkler system efficiencies. The process has been one of attempting to persuade irrigators to improve the efficien- cies of their irrigation systems by demonstrating the economic benefits to be gained by doing so. As the development of additional water supplies has become increasingly difficult, attention is turning to shifting some water from agricultural to urban, commercial, and industrial uses (National Research Council, 1992~. The irri- gated agricultural community generally has been uncomfortable with water mar- keting. There is a long tradition of regarding irrigation water as attached to the land probably because agricultural use of the land otherwise would not be possible in many cases. This tradition is codified in many state water laws. Irrigators usually share water storage and delivery systems and have collective

100 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION responsibility for the operation and maintenance of these systems. Trading or selling water within these systems has been commonplace. Taking water out of these systems for other uses in different locations threatens long-standing opera- tional practices and raises questions about effects on the supply of those who remain within the system. The sale of irrigation water can bring the permanent loss of the associated agricultural activity, potentially affecting that part of the local economy dependent on agriculture. New, more innovative approaches to water transfers are emerging that move water from agriculture to urban uses but with less harmful effects on a given agricultural economy (MacDonnell and Rice, 1994~. For example, in 1989 the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MOOD) paid for improve- ments to the water delivery system of the Imperial Irrigation District, in return for the use of the 100,000 acre-feet of water per year that those improvements are expected to save. In 1992, MWD entered into an arrangement with the Palo Verde Irrigation District for a land "fallowing" program that yielded 186,000 acre-feet of water in a 2-year period at a cost of $25 million (about $135 per acre- foot of water). Interested landowners within the district put together the package of lands that would participate in the fallowing program and, through the district board of directors, worked out satisfactory terms with MOOD. In late 1994, agricultural and urban interests holding water delivery contracts from the Califor- nia State Water Project entered into the "Monterey Agreement." Among other things, this agreement will open up the marketing of State Water Project water among the contractors. Environmental concerns associated with water use also are affecting the irrigation community. For example, drainage from irrigation may contain con- taminants carried from the soils such as selenium, as well as contaminants from pesticides and fertilizers (National Research Council, 1989~. The Broadview Water District in the Central Valley of California developed an innovative pro- gram to reduce drainage water from its users and to better manage the drainage that is produced (Cone and Wichelns, 1993~. District staff work directly with individual irrigators to encourage careful use of water and provide field-specific and crop-specific data describing water use. At the end of the irrigation season, the district brings farmers together to talk about successes and limitations. In 1989 the district instituted a tiered water pricing program under which the price of water increases as the quantity of water used increases. Water deliveries declined from an average of 2.88 acre-feet per acre in 1989 to 2.03 acre-feet per acre in 1992, and subsurface drain water declined from 4,626 acre-feet in 1986 to 854 acre-feet in 1992. Creating incentives for environmental protection appears to be critical in en- abling the irrigation community to respond effectively to new requirements. In the large region encompassing the Broadview Water District, district managers and irrigators in adjoining districts are responding to environmental concerns about drainage disposal by reviewing incentive-based options for reducing selenium and other contaminant loads to the San Joaquin River (Young and Congdon, 1994~.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES Scientific and Technological Responses 101 Technology has had a major role in the evolution of irrigation. Beginning in the nineteenth century, construction of diversions and canal distribution systems facilitated the growth of much of the area irrigated in the western United States. Irrigation in the 1800s was more art than science. Farmers learned by doing and shared what they learned with one another. But science and engineering soon came to play critical roles in irrigation. Perhaps the most significant technologi- cal innovations in this century were led by the Bureau of Reclamation, which designed and built water storage and delivery facilities throughout the West. At the time Hoover Dam was constructed in the 1930s, it represented a remarkable engineering achievement one still greatly admired today. After World War II, advances in technology came rapidly. The less expen- sive and readily available energy from the development of hydroelectric and natural gas supplies and the expansion of the electrical distribution network encouraged pumping. The advent of turbine pumps gave farmers access to ground water supplies and further increased the area irrigated. The technologies that spawned the additional irrigated areas will not, however, bring further increases. Ground water is being depleted, and only in limited areas is the development of wells bringing new land under irrigation. Today, increased industrial and municipal water needs are being met in some instances with the storage and delivery systems that were first constructed for irrigation. The contemporary challenge, however, is not how to improve water storage and delivery; it is how to use water more efficiently. The technology of on-farm systems and improved management will come to the forefront in impact- ing the future of irrigation. Water must be used as effectively as possible to satisfy the increasing demands not only from industry and municipal users but also for the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. The need to reduce or eliminate water quality degradation requires new technology to improve or main- tain the water quality in both surface and ground water. Breeding has of course brought many advances, and there is hope that some- day research will develop plants that use less water. Some successes have al- ready been achieved with genotypes that mature early and avoid late-season drought, or develop deep root systems that gather large amounts of water. Pro- teins have been identified that may protect cells from death during severe dehy- dration, and the control of internal compounds for regulating stomata increas- ingly appears feasible. Some of the modern maize hybrids develop grain where others would fail during a drought, and wheat cultivars are available with in- creased drought tolerance compared to previous commercial types. Recent evi- dence shows that grain growth fails during a drought not because of a simple lack of the water necessary for the reproductive tissues but because the parent plant is unable to produce enough photosynthetic product to feed the developing grain. Thus, there is the possibility of altering the storage of photosynthetic products for use during dry spells.

102 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION ............................................................................................................................. The development of tools of molecular genetics gives promise that under- standing of plant-water relations will increase and be able to help minimize the use of water in crop production. The genetic control of deep rooting is being explored. These approaches may ultimately have application, but at the moment they are contributing mostly to our fundamental understanding of plant behavior. To hasten possible applications, specific target genes need to be identified that have a known function in preserving water while permitting plant growth. So far, the main barrier to progress has been the limited knowledge of which genes are important. Although promising, dramatic water savings from genetic engineer- ing are not imminent. Therefore, for the moment, irrigation savings will need to be sought with existing crops that use water frugally and with improved efficien- cies that decrease water delivery and application requirements.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 103 Genetic Engineering It is still probably too early to assess with accuracy either the potential or the limitations of genetic engineering for crop improvement (National Research Council, 1984~. Gene transfer, for example, is unlikely to have a significant effect on agricultural production practices until the late l990s. We are, however, on the brink of this time period but no significant breakthroughs on production with less water. The main benefit will be improved product quality and control of weeds and other pests, which will allow more economic return for the water used. Successes have been reported on engineering cotton plants that are tolerant of herbicides. When these new plants are cultivated, herbicides can be used to control weeds without damaging the crop. The Flavr Savr_ is a genetically engineered tomato that can be harvested ripe on the vine and brought to the market without softening. There are also biopesticides on the market that will control many pests without the use of chemicals and thus will improve the quality and production of food. Most of the anticipated advances are in the area of improving the characteristics of products for more economical uses and the con- trol of pests and weeds.

104 Conserved Water A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION Although the actual volume of water that can be truly conserved and passed to other uses is, in general, small because conserved water is usually used else- where on the same farm, conservation is a widely accepted way to help meet increasing demands for water. However, the issues of cost and who should pay lend some uncertainty to how big an impact conservation can have for the future. Probably the most significant way to conserve water is by taking land out of production. Using improved application technologies (e.g., LEPA or drip sys- tems) can also bring savings. In addition to freeing water for alternative uses, conservation can help limit the degradation of water quality. Increasing irriga- tion efficiency can reduce the amount of water diverted, but the return flows will be decreased and thus not available for downstream users. The removal of noneconomic vegetation can reduce water consumption, but the trade-off is loss of wildlife habitat and other environmental values. Irrigation Systems Improvements in surface irrigation fall into two general categories: improve- ments in the delivery of water to the farm and improvements in on-farm practices. Storage and Delivery Systems The most significant changes in water deliv- ery systems during this century are the incorporation of water-measuring devices such as metering turn-out gates and computerized flowmeters; the lining of po- rous earthen ditch systems with concrete and other impervious materials; the installation of "check" structures enabling better management of water in a canal or ditch; the use of reregulating ponds for the same purpose; the installation of debris collection systems; and the replacement of open ditches with pipes. All of these features tend to reduce the total quantity of water that must be diverted from a stream for delivery to farm headgates. Lining canals and installing pipelines can reduce the transmission losses. However, these "losses" act as a source of recharge for ground water that is used for irrigation elsewhere or that supports wetlands or other instream uses of water. On-Farm Systems Surface irrigation systems such as flood and furrow systems are still the most widely used type of system. In areas with low-cost water, the typical surface irrigation system produces large quantities of runoff as the water flows across the field and infiltrates into the soil for use by the crop. Areas with more expensive water, such as the San Joaquin Valley, produce less runoff by using siphon tubes, which provide for a more uniform application into furrows of row crops. Land leveling, shorter furrow runs, and construction of borders and basins also provide more uniform irrigation. Gated pipe prevents

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 105 losses in the distribution system and also provides for accurate control of the water to individual furrows. The uniformity of infiltration into the soil is controlled by the time that water is on the surface and the characteristics of the soil. Because it takes time for irrigation water to move down the field, the upper part of the field generally receives more water than the lower end. To provide sufficient water to meet crop needs at the lower end of the field, more water than can be stored in the root zone often is applied to the upper parts of the field. Sprinkler and microirrigation systems are designed to prevent surface runoff and apply the water uniformly to the entire field. Microirrigation applies water in a slow, precise manner. Water is delivered through a system of plastic tubes laid across or just under the surface and outfitted with special emitters designed to drip water into the soil at a rate close to the water consumption rate of the plant. Thus, rather than relying on maintaining soil moisture within the plant's root zone, drip systems seek to provide essentially a continuous supply of water (and other nutrients) directly to the plant. The range of on-farm efficiencies of alterna- tive systems can be as great as 65 to 90 percent independent of the type of system (Keller and Bliesner, 1990~. Closed, on-farm distribution systems are more readily adapted to automation, which is also beneficial considering the trend to larger farms and less-available labor. A more uniform irrigation can facilitate more uniform crop growth and enhance crop production. According to the World Bank, under optimal manage- ment conditions, yield increasesof 20 percent or more have been reported per unit area utilizing drip irrigation, and of 40 percent or more per unit volume of water (Hillel, 1987~. Microsprayer technology and low-head bubbler systems are more recent developments of microirrigation that offer advantages in some cases. The major advantage of converting to sprinkler and microirrigation systems is the ability to more effectively achieve uniform water applications. When these systems are used, less water is needed at the farm gate or from ground water sources. In addition, farmers gain better control of inputs and water savings. Microirrigation systems can help reduce ground water withdrawals from overdrafted basins. However, the increase in irrigation efficiency also reduces the amount of excess water that may have supported other uses. In the arid West, deep perco- lation is necessary to leach salts below the crop root zone. Without periodic leaching, the soil becomes saline and significantly reduces crop production. The reduction in runoff and deep percolation may affect downstream water users and irrigators who pump from the shallow aquifer. At the same time, the water not delivered will either stay in the stream or in the ground water reservoir. Each irrigation system is unique, and a detailed analysis must be made for each

106 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION system as to how the hydrological cycle is affected with changes in diversion or pumping. Irrigation Management Careful management is critical to efficient water use. For instance, the scheduling of irrigations is a major factor in the amount of water actually sup- plied for crop production. If more water is applied than required, either evapora- tion, runoff, or drainage results. Poor scheduling can contribute to water degra- dation as excess water moves through the root zone, mobilizing salts and other constituents. Crops that are underirrigated will suffer water stress and reduced yields. The actual gains available through improved management will vary, of course, because the management skills of farmers vary and because some soils are particularly difficult to manage. In all cases, increased management brings higher costs, some real and some perceived. Thus irrigators must judge whether

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 107 the benefits exceed these costs. If the water is being reused, there may be no water savings from changes in the system and scheduling procedures. The eco- nomic benefits of upgrading and improving an existing irrigation system must be analyzed on a site-specific basis. Current and Future Trends A clear trend in irrigation today is the conversion of surface irrigation systems to more effective techniques such as sprinkler and microirrigation systems, espe- cially where water costs or crop values are high. Center pivot, linear move systems, and other surface systems still irrigate approximately 55 percent of the nation' s total irrigated area, but continued reduction in use is expected. Microirrigation now represents approximately 5 percent of the total irrigated area. Increases in the use of microirrigation systems are associated with high-value crops such as fruits and

108 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION ............................................................................................................................. T'I''lr ~ I'' '''' n---l-nt.-' ' 'r' --- -- ~ ~''t ~ m- - - rig ''' ' A'' ' ' ' -- ' 'r'''' ' ' t ''' to'' '''''r.-' ' r' ''''''''' - -- - y I' ~-' ' 'lain' ' ' ~ l' !' ' ' 'l l' !' By I'm - - - ~1- ~ - - ~ L : :10::: l: :l :l~:~ ~ 1: l: :l::: ~ 1: l:~ At.::::::: :V:I::: ~:t : 1:~: :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ti- 1~ d-- i- t-1~ A-- - 1 ti ---h --i- d~ bi- d-- ith~ ................................... ' ............... , ,. - , i-nci--eases~ ~-n~ lei-s-u-re~ devoted to outside p-u-rsu-its~ ai Dot ~-n~ d'-s-c-ret'-o-n-a-~ i-' co- leg b em ............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. """''u'dy''' ' s""' ' d""'l' ' d'' ' ' p' ""i'' d" ' '' ""h' $""be' ' ' ""' ""' ' " 'r""' ' ' ' ' ' i" "'f' ' ' ' ' 1'' " d""'' '"""""""""""""" ........................ ................................................... .......................... ........................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: .............................................................................................................................. - . . : 1-mug-n-o-u . be growir Gil seasons :u-r g- ass~ 'eq-u-l-res---su-pp -e-m-en a ~ wa :e-~l-rrl-ga lone ............... .............. ... ............ ......................................... , .................... l'U'S"""I' :'-'-' laS""' becomes a ma or wa Earl user and ano err =m' editors lint me quest or .............................................................................................................................. -- - A--- i et-iti-o~ for -ate---i a e ~ it--- il-l---be---i - da ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............... - - - - -. -. - - '1-' - ~ i ~ ~ '~''{i d. t. d. t. M -'-'' i-l'l ' ' ' d""t' ""fi" d'-'-""""""""""""' :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-'-'-:-:-:-.:-:-'-:-:-:-:-'-'-:-:-'-:-:-:-'-:-:-'-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-'-'-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-'-:-'-:-:-'-'-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-1:-:-'-:-:-:-:.-1:-'-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-.:-:-'-'-:-:-'-: so Go co- i-seme~ o-r~ C-e leek ,,,,~,,,,l,ei ---,,,,,~,,,,,l-~-aD-le~ ---net we-- n-eea~ lo l-n-sll-lu.le~ so- leg ............................................................................................................................. .............. + ~- i ~, ~ Tut a-a' e-n-lal~ or anges---l-r ~ pace Boor -e--opponu-nl-lles--lo--r a-u-~---wale-r---use~ lint l-an-a ................................................................................................................................. ................................. -. - -. - -. A' ' ' tan' e""'' f'-'-'a~ l' ' e'""'le' I""'of""'' 'uali'~""fo'"' ............................................... .............................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. """"""'a' ' '' """' I'a' ' " ' '' 'd' """"a' d"""' e'n'e" al"""' u'~" ss""'a" ea """ ' i" 'ai'' ' d"""p i'' ' i'l" ""a' ""e'r' ' i'o'n""""""""""""""' -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-.-:-.-.-:-.-:-.-:-.-:-.-.-.-:-:-:- -:-.-.-.-.-. :- -.-:-:-.-.-:-.-.-.-:-:-: : : :7.:.:.: :.: ............................ :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-:-:-.-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - :::::::::::::::::::::::- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: -::::::::::::::::::: -: :,:::::::::::::::::::: :.:::: ~ ~ ~eve-lop-menl~ an-a use off Iow-mal-n-lenar ce~ lunger so ln--r ug-n~ e-llner---co-n-,ven~ . ................................................................................................................................... Mona- ore-ea-l-n-g~ lecn-n-l-qu-es~ or ol-oe-n-g-l-n-ee-rl-ng~ Gnat req-ul .re~ less Te-rll-l-lze-r~ an-a less .............................................. ... . . i . i. Item ---to r '-al- ita-l-n~ aCce-p.:taDl-e~ q- al-lW~ ants t- i-at are r Ore stress to-le-mnt,~ . . .. ............................... -. -. -. - - - - - - E nd d-- se--ot--'ati- -- -i- sses--s-u '-- s--butt 1 -ass--(B --hi :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ............... - - - -. -. - - -. -. -. - - bl (~ ~ ----I? d-- - I ~it ~-~ 'bit--- hi- b- ' """""""""""""" ............................................................................................................................. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-'-'-:-'-'-:-' -' -'-'-'-:-:-'-:-:-'-'-'-:-'-'l-:-'-'-:-:-'-'-: ' :-'-'-:-:-'-'E-:-: ' :-'-'-'-:-:-:-'-'-:-:-'-'E-:-:-:-:-'-'-:-:-'-:-'-'-:-'-'-:-:-:-:-'-'-:-'-'-:-:-'-'-:-:_~:~-~!:-'-'-:-:-'-'-:-'-'-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: o=IIer aaa' IP~--T~--a~vP-r~P---~--nnalllnn~ :::::::::::::: -:.: ::: : ~.' ~:-:::~:-. :: -: :~:.:~:::~-:.:.: : Y:.:.~. ':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- _:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:i-~:-:-:-:-: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:':-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:-:-:-:-,:j-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-':-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-':-:-:-:-:i-:-:-,:-:-:-:-:-:-,:-:-:-:-:-':-:-:-:-:-:-:-: t ng '""""!" 1 O-I~ tn ~ t""D'' 1" ""1"'1' '' tl --t "" '' ' " ! tr s~ s-n - ~'~"'tl',,,.,,W,,. ' ""1'' """""""""""""" ........................ ... ............. ................................................................................... ... .... ................. - - - -. -. -. - - - ~ to --I-a d ~ C - t i d-- t '1-1' ---hi dot --- it -- th r ta i it ................................................. .............................. ............................................... . . .. - . .. . - - --- I--u-lation--ot-dail~ e- a-- at'- ns- -iiatioin--~-ET)~ and at-a"'' ''edete' ii'ned""ti ie"""the"' ' '"""""""""""""" ................................................................. .............. ..................... ....................... .. ............................................................................................................................. '' r' '1'1' ''"" u" ' ' "'' ' "" 'h'e"" al'' Ed '' ' ' 'la' ' "''h' "" a' ' ''"'I'o' '"' ' "' iT"""""S' i'l""' 'o'i' ' u" "s' ' ' ' -rs'-'' ' d""""""""""""""' -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.-.-:-:-.-.-:-.-:-:-.-.-.-:-.-:-:-:-.-.-.-.-:-.-:-.-:-:-:-.-.-.-:-:-.-.-.-.-:-:-.-:-:-.-:-:-:-.-:-.-.-:-:-:-.-.-:-.-.-.-.-:-:-.-:-:-.-.-:-:-:-.-:-.-.-:-:-:-.-:-.-.-.-1-:-.-:-.-.-.-:-.-.-:-.-.-.-:-:-.-.-.-:-.-:-.-.-.-.-. ............................................................................................................................. I - i , , , i , i -I i i -rovea~ pu-ol-lc~ ea-u-call-on~ on ones l-m-po-.~. al ce~ oT---w.a..le - - - - I-i c' ased~ set of lo' -potable .ate-r- effl- i-e-n-~ and relied ~-~i ---l-an-d ...... . ............................. - -. -. - - - - - - s i-' ~ D 1-- - teti--s - t m- --I - - i i e -- i d-- or - i i i- -1--site -- ~ - ri I-- tenti 1~ - . ... .. ....................................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I------- - ----------------------- ---------I ------- - --- --- --------- l------- ----- - I------- ----- - --- --------- ------- - - ------------- - - l------- ------- -_l ----- ------------- ------- -------it- - ------ lo--rec.~cle--waler-- lor--u-se--o-n--l-a-nus~neu--amas ~ vegetables. Limited water availability and high costs are the driving forces for these conversions. Lack of capital and an inability to pay for the investment with in creased production in a short time period are still major constraints to conversions where water is plentiful and relatively inexpensive. In areas such as the high plains of Texas with limited ground water supplies, many center pivot and LEPA sys tems are being installed. California, Florida, and Hawaii have made significant conversions to microirrigation. As we move toward the future, the competition for water and the need to increase efficiencies will continue to provide the driving force for conversion to sprinkler and microirrigation systems and the development of new technologies.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 109 The 10 to 15 years required for widespread adoption of new technology must be recognized when developing policies for irrigation system improvements. Capi- tal incentives can be provided to farmers to accelerate the conversion. Compet- ing demands for water also will be met through reduction of irrigated area as urban growth and environmental concerns compete for a larger share of good- quality water. However, to the extent that farmers have capital to convert to more efficient irrigation systems, the total crop production can be expected to decline only slightly. Researchers are investigating opportunities for plant adaptations that could re- duce the plants' need for water. Improvements in water delivery and use technolo- gies are already making major contributions to agriculture' s ability to use less water to produce crops. Continued research is needed to develop strategies to prevent environmental degradation. At this point in time, the key limitations in improving agricultural water use efficiency are more economic and institutional than technical. The means for installing more efficient systems and the incentives to do so or to use more efficient practices simply have not always provided enough return to the grower to justify the expense of changing. The experience of this committee in talking to farmers reviewing the case examined in Chapter 4 indicates that the more successful farm operators are those who adopt new technology, strive for water efficiency, and manage capital-intensive operations. Institutional Responses There is a long history of highly developed institutions created to support the substantial infrastructure necessary for irrigation (Worster, 1985~. Increasingly, institutions and their missions are adjusting to the forces of change already de- scribed. Table 4.2 provides a partial list of relevant institutions to illustrate the diversity of organizations acting at different levels. This section discusses some of the institutional responses at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. Federal Level National policies affecting agriculture generally are in a period of transition. The conservation reserve program (CRP), for example, represents an important modification of the traditional farm-support programs because it supports farm- ers' incomes while reducing surplus production and promoting environmental values. The CRP pays farmers a yearly rental rate that averages about $50 per acre to remove land from production for 10 years (Faeth,1995~. The retired lands are supposed to be those that are highly credible or that otherwise contribute to water quality problems. In 1993, more than 36 million acres of land were en- rolled in this program. Nevertheless, critics note the inconsistency of farm pro- grams that offer incentives to limit planted acreage and the production of specific crops, and reclamation policies that encourage irrigation and allow irrigators to grow these same crops with subsidized water (Moore and McGuckin, 1988~.

110 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION ............................................................................................................................. I-rr-~-q-at-~-o-n~ --n-st-~t-ut-~-o-n-s~ ~e-s-no-n-c ~ to u 1-a-n-q-e-:~ T. ~ new n-~-sto-~---o --g-ro-una--wate-r--management In !. ................................................................................................................................ .............. .............. - -. A.- -. - .......... - .................... ............................................................................................................................. ..................................... -. -. -. - - - - - -. -. -. -. -. -. - -. - - - ............................................................................................................ ' ~ qualms was perm~v.ed as a signs [cant problem and Nebraska allowed a la~ssez ................. ............. ................. .................................................. ...... ................. .... ............................................................................................................................ ~ p If ~ S -- - 1 Jim Ii i d -- Il sp i q i ................................................................................................................................. ............... . .............. , . ............................. : l-e-re~ were no com-pre- l-e-n-s-lve~ g-rou-n-~ ~ wa Earl ma-n-ageme-n- ~ p-.rog-ra-ms-, . ... ......................... - ...................................... - -. i ........... ..... daplO ac ances ln lrrigatlon r e e opment ln t ne late ~ Yuos no e er lea to e s~ ab ui -- i u- d~ ti-~--a d---t --t-h --- i-ti ~th t--s al-l~ si -Ie = ........................................... - - - - - - - - ............................................................................................................................. """"""""""""""'' ' ' ' '' ' ""'d';' ' j'' ""' ' "' """ ' b';" '' d""'i'' '' ""'24""~23""'' ' ""' f""'l"99 i)""'' ' ' '' ' 'h'' ''" 'i' ' ""'N ''"' 1""""""""""""""' ............................................................................................................................. ................... ~ ~esou-r-~ al-sl-ricis~ ~-lN--,.,~.us}~ cove-rl-n-g~ ln-e~ enil-re~ slale~ l~ n-e~ lN--,.,~.us~ a ................................................................................................................................. . j i i . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :: :::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ................................................................................................................................. ~ b-mad~ responsI-bl-l-~-tI-es~ ~-ncl-ud-~-ng~ e-rosl-o-n~ and~ rl-ood~ =ntrol~ sol-l~ co-n-sema l-o-n~ wate-r~ ............................................................................ ' ....................... ............................................................................................................................ """"""""$'''p''1''""'''' ''" d""' ''d""$'''d' ' ""' '' ""'' '' ''' 'j' ''""'d'' i" ' " """' i'l'd'l'if h' b;''''""' ' ' ' " '"""""""""""""" ............................................................................................................................... -""" '' '' ' ,""''' ' " ' t''' '' """'' ' " ""' ' ' t""' ' ' """' " 'j ' ""' ', ' '' g" " ' ' '""""' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................................................ , l ~! ~To InlIlale gmuna waTer management controls To aaamSs oOin quanTlly ana - T - - - - - i i - -. i ~_. i - -. ~ne~ estaD-l-ls-n-m-e-ni~ ot~ tn-e~ N--~-u$~ s-et~ tn-e~ stag-e~ to-r~ otner~ l-n-st-lt- t-lonal~ an~ si ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................ - - . - - - - - - - -. - - ~ n-en~i-rst--ih-e---e-n-actn-ent~ th -~- -dwat--M - ................ - -. - - - - -. - - - - -. - - ............. -"""""""~11' ' ' d~ b' '~ h' '-'-'N-' -b' ' -~'-'-G~ ' 'd' ' t' ''-'-'M-' -' '' ' -' ' ' -' 't"'' '' -d~ P'' `' ij' ' -'-'A' t-'-'iG-M'P~'~ ............................................................................................................................. ........................... -'j' """1"98i'""""""'Th' """GM'PA""' ' -'h' j''' d"""' ............................................................................................................................. ................................................ i i ............. ~ a- eas~ a-n-a~ a,.,e.,.vel-o-p~ g-mu-n-a~ wale-r~ m-an-ageme-nl~ pl-ans~ v-a-rlous~ a-mena-m-en s~ n.a e~ ................................................................................................................................ .................. - - , , -., i . i. - .- - -.- - ~ t i0- - O---th N~U --- tn- It t g 1 t g ~t , ! M t--th ~ ............................. ... .................................................................................. ............ ....................................... - - - - - - - - ............................. a.p.p h---i~ th- t---it---h ~ i e ---I I~ th .................. .... .......................................................................................................... ~ le a i e i el o 1 a es in ......................................................................... ............................................................................. ........................... ..... ............................................................................................................................ """"""""""""""'U""""'''"""' ' '''" 1"''' '""''"'' . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::~:::::::~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::s :::::::::::~:i::::.:::. ::::::::::~:~:~:::::::::::::::::::: ~ uea~ a-ecl-~-nes~ we-re~ ~-n-evl-lao-le~ w-ne-n~ a~ waie-r~ =nlml~ a-rea~ was~ Tl-rs.l~ es ao-~-lsne-a~ l-n~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::~: - :_::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::i::::::::::.:::::::i:::::::::: :::: :::~: - : - :::i:::::i::::: ~ ~--Y--.t-~ tne~ a ea~ co-n-~--ne-~ ano- t~ ~ 4uu~ rr--g~lon~ e-ns~ tnat~ e- e~ ............................. - -. -. - - -. -. - -. -. - -. -. - -. -. - _ - -. - - ~ ea I --31-0--000~ s~ ~--i d Il ~ d-e- -the--di-re tio --ot-th --N-RD---al-lo atio -s~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::J::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i :1 ::::::::::::::::: ' h' '-' d'-'-'i-' """"''''i''" ""'i''' ''' ii' '' ""~""' ............................................................................................................................. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::i:,::::::::: : ::::::il::::::::::::i,::::::::::::: - :,:::::::::::::::::::::i::::,:i:::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::: .......... ~ tn-e~ ~--Yuu---al-l-ocallon l ne regulaTlons n.,.a,.,,.,v.e aTTeclea lrrlgaTlon ana arm-l-n-g~ p acTI-ces ~I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::j:::::: :,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :,:::::::::i:::j:::::j:::::::: ::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................... t .................. - -. -. -. -. - -. - - - - -. - - - ............................. s i.n c e T.he-- ............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ -""""""'th'o'u' h""th'e"" a~' 't' b'le"has"'' ' ti'n'ued""to--de I-i e.--the ~of--de I-i e--is-- -u h--sl-o e ~ ~ """"""""""""' ' '' ' ' e' "'e' ' ' 'le""' a' """ e""see' ""'i'' """ ' e""'' e' ' ' I""" ' ' ''a' ' ""'' ' ' ' ' al"""' es" ' '' ' """ 'i' .................... .............. ~ .................... ... ...................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: j j - -- '' ' ' ' ' """' ' """ ' ' ' i'l' ""'i"' i' ' ''' ' """' ' ' '" 1"""" 1'' ''' """ ' 1'1' ~l :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::~:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::~::~:::::~::::::::~:~::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::~::::::~:~::::::::::::::~::~::: - : ~ wla-esp-reaa~ l-rrlg-all-o-n~ Deg-an~ l-n~ me~ m-ia---l---Yo-us---ana~ a-eve-to-pea~ ra-pl-al-y~ l-n~ l-n-e~ l--Y--~-us~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: :_::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::i:: :i:::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::.::i:::::: :i:::::::::::::::ii:: ~ ~- e-~---du~pe-rcent---ot---tne---cro-pl-an-~---l-n---t-n-e~ a-ll-e-y~ls---l-rrl-ga-teo~ mostl~ '-a---t- -rro~ I-r~lg-atl-o-n~ g . . ............... - - - - - - - -. - - - ~ but~al-so~i asi- I -- ith-- t -- i .i-s -ri kl-e-rs~ l-ii ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::J::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 111 ........................................................................................................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............. ........... ... _ ............ . ~.~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....... b h--- i- Id-i ~ Wh- -- 't--1 1 ~ -d--t --by ---~--t --th- --ti- --tb -- - blip .................................................................. -. ............................ sea . ~ s anc ar ~ ~ o .. ~ p-pm-,~ --e ~-n-u~ ~no-u-~ea~ ~sea-rcR~ anal aeLe=-lneD~ L ............................................................................................................................ ~ p-.roo-~e-m~ was aue---p-rI-m-a-rI-ly---To---.e x.cess---a-ppl-l-call-o-n~ oT---nl-l~ge-n~ an-a l-rn-gallon---wale-r~ lint ~ - . . ... ............... - . - ._ _ - i - - i - i i . --l--YU-~ tne~ ~-~-st-r-ct~ m-pl-e-mente0~ ..a. ~ com-p-mnens-~ gee- -nor ~.,t.er~ m.,a. n~-e .............................................................................................................................. ............... - - - - - - - - - - - - :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::~:::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::: :::::::::::::::::: ~ Keens p-n-aseD~ ~-n~ envl--.ron-menta-~ ~-mp-rove-ments~ nave De£o-m-e~ e.vIo-e-n-t.~ Ford exam ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 7 h b f fi Id h ~ 1 d b th 60 d ............................................................................................................................. '_ l l or----------- --- A :::::::::-:-:-:::-:-:-:::-:-1:::: ~,.,a.,.s~ Decreases Tome ---lo i-- pe-r~nl~ ants resl-~-u-a-l~ so-l-l n-lL- ale Hash ~-ecl-l-nea~ oy~ But :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::1:' :::::':::::: :1_:::::::::::::::::: ::::: pe-rcenI~ ~-munu~ wale-r---q-u-a-l-lly---!-n---lu-e~ m-o.sl---s.ev-em---p-ro-~l-em---amas~ lint pa-~lcu-lar~ ~-as .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - I -'- - -'-'- - - - - - - -'- - - -! - -'- -'- - -'-'- - -'- -'-'- - - - - -'-'- - -'- -'- - - -'- - -'-'- -. - - - - - HI'-'- - -'- - - -I -'- -' -'-'- -i - -'- - - -''- -'- - - -. - -'- -'-'- - -'-'- - -'-I - - -' sundowns !-m-p-roveme.-nl,~ l---ne~ ~-lslo-rlc~ re-n-~---oT~ rls-l-n-g~ n-l-l ~le~ conce.-nl' -~.-lons~ n-as---slal-l-eo ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: anal Deg-un~ ~ ~-ecl-l-ne~ link l-a-~-e~ part i ecause~ Ott tinker ~--~- so enons~ anal tu-~ne-r~ limb :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::...:::::::.::::::::::::::::::: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-,-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-: ~ t$ '' ~O' '' f~d 't "' '' '''" '''"'' '' ' ''U' O""'''' "" t"""' ''' O""''1't'''""""""""""""""~ -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: 222222222222222~^222~2^~22tA`^t^~22 t t; if; ~ -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~-I=:I-:i-:-:- Ll:-1:~:-:-:VV-~-L=:I-:-:-:i :-t:-1 Ll:-1:~-~-=i :-1:-1~-1:-:1-L-:-:~J:I-:~-LI~:-:-~:I-:i-:LI:I-:i-U=-'-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ':::::::::::::: =:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::: ::::::::::::: ::::::::::= :::::::::: ::: ::::::::: ::: ::: :::: :~ ::: ::::::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::: ::::::: :: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: In the process of helping to develop the West's rivers and promoting irriga- tion, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) emerged as the supplier of one- fifth of all irrigation water in the United States, the country's sixth largest genera- tor of electric power, and manager of 45 percent of the West's surface waters (Beard, 1994~. But by the 1980s, the USER was under stress. There had been no new authorizations for large federally financed irrigation projects since 1968, and the agency was being widely criticized for wasting federal funds, promoting inefficient water use, and damaging the environment. As a result, in 1987 the agency announced that it had accomplished its initial mission of helping to settle the West and that its mission was to change from one based on federally sup- ported construction of irrigation projects to one based on resource management (Bureau of Reclamation, 1987~. It was another 5 years before there was much evidence that the agency did indeed view its mission as being broader than building dams and serving its traditional irrigation constituency. The 1992 Strategic Plan set forth new prin- ciples, goals, and strategies to guide the future Bureau of Reclamation. Its new mission is "To manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public" (Bureau of Reclamation, 1992~. The agency's objectives now include providing a balanced approach to the stewardship of the West's scarce water and associated land and energy resources and diligently fulfilling its cost recovery responsibilities. To fulfill these objectives, the Blueprint for Reform: The Commissioner's Plan for Reinventing Reclamation presented the following organizational prin- ciples for the USER (Beard, 1993~: · Facilitate changes from current to new uses of water when such changes increase benefits to society and the environment;

112 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION TABLE 4.2 A Partial Listing of Government and Independent Agencies Concerned with Water Resources Federal Level Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brueau of Reclamation Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of Agriculture (various divisions) National Science Foundation U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Level Interstate Commerce Commission Various river basin commissions Great Lakes commissions Various boundary water commissions Resource conservation and development areas State Level Departments of Agriculture, Economic Development, Fish and Game, Public Safety, Health, Natural Resources, and Transportation State engineers offices Environmental quality boards Pollution control agencies Soil and water conservation boards State planning boards and agencies Water planning boards Water resources boards Tribal Level Environmental quality boards Natural resources commissions Tribal water rights offices Tribal government offices Local Level County agencies, boards, and committees Municipal agencies Township agencies Drainage districts · Emphasize the coordinated use and management of their existing facili- ties to improve the management of existing water and hydroelectric supplies; · Encourage conservation and improvements in the efficiency of use of already developed water and hydroelectric supplies; · Promote the sustainable use of the water and associated land resources in an environmentally sensitive manner; · Facilitate integrated water resources management on a watershed basis · Conduct the agency in a fiscally responsible manner.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 113 ........................................................................................................................... .............................................................................. ............... ................... .. .............................................. .. ......... ........................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :: :: . ~:~: . V : :::: : :|:~: .. : . : : . : : ·:::: A: .~ TV : :~ :::: Vat :~.-: -Ida a a- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: _ I d'''t' ''' '''" i'' '" "1'"'" '''' " ' 1' '''''''''I ............................................................................................................................. ................... , i , ~. ~i is- , . ~ .w,n-o~ are maKI-ng~ my lilted n-lse-ra-ol-e--~ an-a --m nook Del-ng~ pale ................................................................................................................................. .............. - - - -.- . Ate ~ r -~ i I r it' ~ ~ ^ r I * + ~I i ~ i [v-~--i-~-~ ~y=-!---lw!-~---~ ~vi---~-!--!---~ ~ ~v~-~-!-~!-~-~--~ vie I-! I---! it AVER ~ At ~Y~-!~-~---~! ......................... .......................................................................... ........................... . . . -.-. . . ... . . . .~ .i-n~ ce.n-tra-l.-.-.Ari-z~ a i-ni-ti-- ted ~ """""""""" ' """i'' ''ti'at' ' """' s"""a""' es'""" ""'fi" ' """' a' ' """' ' """st' e' g' ' '' '' """' ' e""'l" ' al"""i'' ' i'' ' ' """ag''i" ' '1'' ' " al""""""""""""""' ................................................................................................................................................................................. ............... .. ........................ i ,. ~ ~ sy.s...~e.m...--ln-roug-n~ n -a-n-agenal~ a-n-a---Tec-n-no-log-lca-l---c-n-ang-es---Tocusea~ on~ l . ... ... ~ ageme-n-l~ oT~ nalu-ra-l~ reso-~-mes~ a-n-a~ olner~ l-n-puls~ leBa-l-ng~ lo~ l-m-p-.ro.v.ea~ pm.TIIaolll~ ::::::::::::::::::...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: s-u-s~al-n-a-on-lW~ ano~ na u- al~ resou-mes~ m-anageme-nt.~ l---ne~ p-mg-ra-m~ naC~ In-ree~ pDas~ i-n--th --all - sti- -- al i-s-- has ~i- t dis-i- I-i --t a -- t-- -ds--gath -r d~ - ... .. ... ~ .................. - - - - - - - ~ d~a'-'-a' d'-'-'r' '' ' -d'-d'-'-' ' ' i'' d-' -' ' ' ta'l-l' ~ h --jr i -at d-- i-c -It - - a$-- d- -r i- --i - ... ......... ........ ... ....... ~ ..... . ............................................................................................................................. th i th t 1 i g h th t d t di g sh d jth ............................................................................................................................. .............. i. , ~., , ., , , , . ` .............. ~ ln-e~ co- n- n-u-n-lly---T-n-,r -u-g-n~ sl-ru-cT-u-,r a~ acilvill-es~ l-nvo-lvl-ng~ ln-e~ s aKenol-aem,~ l-n~ ln-e~ pe~ .................................................................................................................................. ............... - - - - .............................................................................................................................. ........................... - - - - - - - - - -. ~^hmmi^~ ~Ar~r-^ ^~^hli~h^~ t^~ i- +- i ~th ~-- - ~- - -t ::::::::::::: :1:1: 1:~!: 1~l: :l1~! :! :IO:: :VV ~l:~: ~:~l l:Ql: I:~:: LV:: O:~:~l:! :l:: 4l: l:~: :~l:l:Vl: :L:: 41:~1:: : 41:1:~: :1:V..:, :l:l: l~l:: ~l: l:~:: ~ l:: :`l: :!~: :! V:! l: l::: ....... When th test .je t nd d 3 ea s l t e al uatio s ffi nd that the st ....................................................................... ........ ........................................ ...... ............................................................................................................................ ~ """"""""i'' " '' all'' '' ""i" '' ' ' ' "" ' "' ""' d ' ' i'' ' ""' "" ' '' " '' ' ""' '' d ' '' ' di g ~ h '-'-' '' '~ j--- j- ............................................................................................................................. .............. i ~i ~ lions ana cvo.rlnaTlon amvng.a..genclesanaTarme.rs. ~l~ enons.r s-ul-4ea~l-n~4ecn~ ........... ... ... ~ no-logy~ l-ransTe-r~ ana~ l-mp-rovea~ re$Q-u-me~ ma-n-ag-eme-n-l~ ~-u-nn-e-r~ Ine lessons am .... . ........................................................ , _ i - i i ~ s-pman-l-n-g---as~ M-I--~---panl-cl-pan-ts~ l-ncl-uc-l-ng~ ovI-n---mrmers---a-n-a---ag-e-n-~---perso-n-nel~ l-n- e~ . ... . . ~ ...................... - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ............... - - - - - - - - - - -. -. ~ it-l -~--b h-i -d-- -1- a-1--i t - -O ~-i -a i- --G - --(CGt~ l d--b --a--fa-r e --a- d- ith~ - ... .. ...... ... .... ......... ..... .... = ::.:.::):: : ............................................................................................................................. ............ ~ ~'' ' ''-'' ' ' b' ' ''-'-'t''~ ''tj-'''' '-'i-t''-'' ' ~'"""'1~""' 'j'''j ~j's-'-t' '-'''''' jd' ~ '' ' 'jd' '-''' ' ~'j~ ............................................................................................................................. .............. i ~ ~, - ................... - llon~ oT~ Ta-rm-e- s~ an-a~ su-ppo-~ se-wl-ms~ lo~ se-,.,.w,., e~ ln-e~ l-nTe-,r sls~ o.,.T~ ag-rl ............................................................................................................................... ................................... , i -.- - - ............................ ............................................................................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::::: :: :::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::---::::::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::::::-::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::::-::-:::::::::::::::::::::: .~ ne~ fa--- i~ a~ ti- es~ an-d--Mh-e- -- e- h - -is- s~ t~ 'e' ' hang' -'-'i-' fo''' ation".""""Th '""C'G""""""""""""""' ............... 2c.""o"n2ti.'n2.'u-e's2.-"' ' ..................................................................................................................................... .............. ......................... ............................................................................................................................ .~ """"""""' ' 'e""' ' e' '$""' .' "'t' e""a" a''s""i'' ' i'ga e' ""'ag' i" ' 1'' ' ''e"""""'' ' ""' ' ' i'' '' 'e""l'o" 'g' e' ' """"i" "'' 'il'l""" ' "" """""""""""""" .............................................................................................................................................. .................................. ....................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:t^:~:~::::: .~. :~:~:I:i:~:~:~:::::i~-~:l:~:T^~:::::T~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^^ r~ ~ :::::TI:~:~:::::::::~:~^i~:^I:::::~:~:i~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ v v ~ l- .~.-. . ! ! I ~ --! ! ~ l =! I y=. . ~ I ~l ~ L=- LV ~ ~ I l l~l != ~ V l l l l l~l l l ~= l ~ LI ! ! l ~ ~ ~= ! ~V. . ! lI !~l ~l l~l !y =- ... ~ aT.Te~l-n-g~ me~ g-.rou-p~ a ia~ :ne~ agencl-es~ la-e-nilT~-ca~l-oi ~ a ia~ i.Ucru-llme-n-l---oT~ Ieaa-e-rs-n-l-p~ ... ... . ... It is too early to know just what the Bureau of Reclamation's restructuring and new mission will mean for irrigated agriculture. If the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992) is taken as an example of future directions, it appears that reclamation policy is indeed changing from its tradition of promoting irriga- tion at the expense of the environment and the federal Treasury. California's Central Valley Project (CVP) is the largest federal water system in the country. Under the 1992 legislation, 800,000 acre-feet annually of CVP water that might otherwise have gone for agriculture is now dedicated for fish, wildlife, and habi

4 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION tat purposes. Furthermore, surcharges are being imposed on water users to finance environmentally related investments, marketing of federally supplied water is promoted, and tiered water pricing to encourage conservation is man- dated. If this act provides a precedent for future legislation, many of the benefi- ciaries of past reclamation policies should expect to receive less federally sup- plied water in the future and pay more for what they do receive. The focus of federal policies affecting water use has shifted sharply over the last 25 years or so toward greater protection of remaining streamflows and recov- ery of some of the environmental and recreational values that had been lost in the drive to provide homes, factories, and farms with water. This shift is evident in a number of legislative acts. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 precludes development activities that might significantly alter an area's natural amenities on thousands of miles of rivers and streams. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 requires all federal agencies to give full consideration to environ- mental effects in planning their programs. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (commonly known as the Clean Water Act), together with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and other legislation regulating the use and cleanup of toxic materials, have made water quality rather than water supply the driving force behind the nation's water-related investments. Requirements for protection of endangered species and their habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) are emerging as a major factor in some water manage- ment and investment decisions. Agriculture has been a prime target in the debate over reauthorization of the Clean Water Act because changes in farming practices increasingly are viewed as critical to achieving further improvements in water quality. Past efforts to im- prove the quality of the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries have focused on controlling municipal and industrial point-source pollutants. These efforts are encountering high costs and diminishing returns in their ability to improve the quality of these water bodies to a fully usable condition. So far, agriculture has avoided the types of controls placed on the municipal and industrial point-source pollutants because the diffuse nature of most agricultural pollutants makes them difficult to control. Initially, the Environmental Protection Agency regarded discrete return flows from irrigated agriculture as point sources (Getches et al., 1991~. Congress excluded agriculture from point-source regulation in 1977, and, since then, implementation of the Clean Water Act has not differentiated between dryland and irrigated agriculture. But this could change in areas where irrigation is a major contributor to water quality problems. Proposals for more deliberate regulation and enforcement of irrigation drainage, such as water quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where high selenium levels were deform- ing and killing migratory birds, provide a precedent for further regulation of irrigation return flows (Young and Congdon, 1994~. In 1937 the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now the Natural Resource Conservation Service) was created to assist farmers in preventing soil erosion.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 115 The mission of the SCS was subsequently expanded to address soil erosion problems at a watershed level, as well as irrigation and municipal water storage. In the 1960s and 1970s, criticism of the SCS programs focused on impacts to fish and wildlife, loss of wetlands, and drainage problems, and its mission again was changed. The 1977 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act required Na- tional Resource Inventories as the basis for SCS activities to reduce soil erosion, improve water management, reduce upstream flood damage, improve range con- dition, and improve water quality. This trend extended to the Food Security Act of 1985, which included a strong conservation title designed to protect wetlands. Today, the NRCS, along with other USDA agencies, is actively involved in providing financial, technical, and research services to farmers to conserve and protect highly credible and environmentally sensitive lands and water quality. These changes are attributed to increasing competition over water resources, environmental concerns, and concerns for safe drinking water, recreation, and other public uses. The future mission of the NRCS is expected to be based on an ecosystem approach to resource planning to assist in meeting society's water needs and to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources (Carmack, 1994~. State, Tribal, and Local Levels Individual states and tribes set the rules managing the water resources within their boundaries. Because of the importance of irrigation to the settlement of the western United States, state water law initially developed in ways that supported the needs of irrigators. The prior appropriation doctrine emphasizes the importance of seniority, a feature that is especially favorable to irrigators, who were generally the first to put large quantities of water to use in the West. It emphasizes physical control of water as a means of establishing a legal claim, another feature that favors

116 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION irrigation because water must be diverted out-of-stream to bring it to the fields for use. The seniority of tribal water rights now challenges the adequacy of most state water laws. In addition, the relationship between the tribes and the federal govern- ment usually requires federal government involvement. At its base, water law is a system for allocating claims to use water; it is not designed to facilitate changes of those claims (MacDonnell, 1995~. With the growing recognition of the need for reallocation of some existing water uses to new uses, states are moving to make their water laws and related review pro- cesses more able to accommodate voluntary transfers of water and water rights (MacDonnell et al., 1990~. Similarly, the Bureau of Reclamation has made efforts to accommodate voluntary transfers of USBR-supplied water. The devel- opment of tribal water codes and management systems will add another dimen- sion to the network of institutional structures related to water management. One especially promising mechanism for facilitating both temporary and permanent water transfers is the water bank (MacDonnell, 1996~. A water bank can be defined as "an institutionalized process specifically designed to facilitate the transfer of developed water to new uses." The potential effectiveness of water banks is illustrated by the successful use of this mechanism in California during the drought years of 1991,1992, and 1994. A water bank can operate at a state, regional, or local level. It can be designed specifically to meet the needs of interested parties. One attraction for holders of water rights is the ability of a water bank to facilitate rentals and leases of water in addition to the more tradi- tional approach involving the permanent sale of the water right. It offers the water right holder a choice about whether, in any given year, they would be better off renting or leasing water to another or using it themselves. It could provide water supply organizations such as irrigation districts and their water users a means of devising planned land fallowing schemes or other such approaches, similar to the arrangement involving the Palo Verde Irrigation District described above, and marketing the unused water without permanent reductions in its agri- cultural base or water rights holdings. In addition to the matter of reallocation, western water law with its empha- sis on "use-it-or-lose-it" remains in need of revision to provide incentives for more efficient water use (MacDonnell and Rice, 1994~. Under the laws of most western states, irrigators installing more efficient irrigation systems lose the abil- ity to legally use the portion of water that has been "saved." There is some logic for this: before the conservation strategy was applied, the "saved" water would have run off the land and subsequently been available to downstream users. But given the expense of installing more efficient technologies, one of the incentives that might encourage such action namely, being able to make use of the addi- tional water or to sell the water to another user is lacking. The question is whether the saved water is the property of the one making the investment to use less water for a given purpose or whether it becomes the property of the remain- ing water rights holders within the water supply system.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 117 The state of Washington has put in place an alternative approach, one in which government would pay for the improvements in return for legal control over the water no longer needed for irrigation. In 1994, Congress enacted a bill that could make funds available to help plan for and install more efficient irriga- tion systems in the Yakima Valley (MacDonnell et al., 1995~. State and local funds also must be provided. Water saved through these improvements would then be managed by the State Department of Ecology. A difficult problem is raised by the question of whether current state water law allows overuse of water. In theory, appropriative water rights are limited to the "beneficial" use of water. Thus, for example, Colorado defines beneficial use as "the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made . . ." (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 37- 92-103 (4~.) In practice, the beneficial use standard has been very loosely applied (Shupe, 1982~. It is instructive, for example, to compare the efficiency with which irrigators use water as a function of the seniority of their rights and the adequacy of their supply. Almost invariably, junior users are more efficient simply because they have to be. The question of efficiency in water policy is a complicated one. Irrigation efficiency, for example, focuses on the amount of water used by crops for their evapotranspiration compared to the amount of water either diverted, delivered, or applied for this purpose (Keller and Keller, 1995~. A modification of this tradi- tional approach views efficiency as the relationship between the amount of water "reasonably and beneficially used" to the amount of water applied. The concept of "net" irrigation efficiency takes into account subsequent use of return flows, beneficial consumptive use, and nonbeneficial consumptive use. Still another concept proposed is the term "effective" irrigation efficiency defined as the difference between "effective" inflow and "effective" outflow of water within a defined area. Like the net irrigation efficiency approach, this definition acknowl- edges return flows, but it also explicitly accounts for the need for some portion of the water supply to leach salts out of the root zone of crops. None of these approaches to evaluating efficiency considers other related issues of the costs and benefits of the water uses that are being examined, nor do they permit consideration of the costs and benefits of making changes to increase the efficiency of use. Moreover, all of the approaches focus on irrigation use of water alone, without regard for other, nonirrigation uses nor overall watershed conditions. Thus, for example, even in the approaches that consider return flows there is no recognition that diverted water might have served valuable uses be- tween the point of diversion and the point of return. Nor does it account for the possible adverse effects resulting from salts and other contaminants added to the water because of its diversion and use. Whatever analytical approach is used, it is clear that there are few positive incentives for irrigators to make the investments necessary to reduce their water

118 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION use. The laws of most states do not allow an irrigator to transfer "saved" water to another or to increase his or her consumptive use by, for example, using the saved water to irrigate additional lands (MacDonnell and Rice, 1994~. Such restrictions are primarily intended to protect other downstream water users from possible adverse changes in their historical water supply. Oregon and Montana have addressed this concern by explicitly conditioning the ability to transfer saved water on the requirement that there be no injury to other water rights. Given the absence of economic incentives, voluntary conservation efforts may not be sufficient. Consequently, some states and local water districts are turning to regulatory approaches to require more efficient water use. California has used its authority regarding "reasonable use" of water to require the Imperial Irrigation District to increase its water use efficiency (California State Water Resources Control Board, 1984~. Oregon is proposing the institution of water conservation plans that would limit all uses to prescribed maximum amounts of water. Arizona is gradually reducing the allowable water duties for crops irri- gated with ground water within described "active management areas" (MacDonnell and Rice, 1994~. Tribal water rights settlements involving irrigation specify project water duties, efficiencies, and systems. The critical decline in the level of the Ogallala aquifer in some areas has prompted regulatory responses at both the state and the local level. For example, well spacing requirements of some kind now exist for ground water development from the Ogallala aquifer in all of the states where it is found (Opie, 1993~. Requirements for measuring withdrawals also now are common. In a few cases, users themselves have even imposed limits on the amounts of ground water that can be withdrawn beyond those provided in their original allocation (Kromm and White, 1992~. In addition to regulatory approaches, states and water districts are providing financial assistance as an incentive to implement water conservation practices. One form of such assistance is by providing low-interest loans to farmers to make soil or water conservation investments. The low-interest loans could be used to purchase distribution systems that are more technically efficient because of im- proved distribution efficiency or use of lower water pressure. Thus, theoretically, less water and much less energy could produce the same level of crop yield. However, with improved efficiency of water use and lower energy use, annual water use will not necessarily decrease because farms could use the conserved water to increase production on additional acreage. Irrigation water supply orga- nizations have played a central role in the development of irrigation. As the needs shift from developing and delivering a water supply to solving a more complex set of problems, including pressure to ensure the continuing availability of water in a time of increasing competition and increasing concern about the environmental effects of irrigation, irrigation water supply organizations face different challenges. In many cases, these organizations are demonstrating real leadership in helping irrigation meet these challenges. In other cases, they seem

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 119 caught in their more narrow traditional role and set to resist change rather than to facilitate it. They are key institutions with the potential to serve a critical func- tion in ensuring that irrigation has a sustainable future. Their record to this point in serving this function, however, is mixed. Ground water overdraft is one of many examples in which flawed institu- tions are delaying efforts to manage water resources effectively and to plan intelligently for the future. The mixture of water laws adopted by each state often depended on how arid the land was. Today, water law in the arid West protects senior users from supply interruptions and ensures that water entitlements will actually be employed, but efficiency is sacrificed. The prior appropriation doc- trine and custom spell out an orderly way to allocate water resources, but they compromise the potential benefits of the resource through cumbersome treatment of water rights transfers. Fortunately, state law also is changing to reflect increased interest in main- taining and protecting instream or in-place uses of water (MacDonnell and Rice, 1993~. The long-held view that water should be managed almost exclusively for its out-of-stream uses, such as irrigation, is giving way to an increasingly widely held view that the ecological and recreational values of water are at least as important. To date, the changes in the laws of the western states regarding instream flows have had little direct effect on irrigation because the rights allocat- ing water to irrigation use are very senior. Indirectly, however, attention to the in-place benefits of water highlights the massive manipulation of the rivers of the West that has occurred to facilitate irrigation. It raises questions, at a minimum, about whether there are ways in which existing irrigation needs can be met with less impairment of instream values. Watershed-based approaches to water management are emerging in many areas, sometimes led by state, tribal, and federal agencies and sometimes driven by local interests (Natural Resources Law Center, 1995~. Typically, these "wa- tershed" initiatives are motivated by some overriding problem that is not being adequately addressed within the traditional legal and management structure. The watershed initiative institutes its own structure that includes the interests neces- sary to make desired change. Assuming agreement is reached on the nature of the change, the collective influence of the interests is used to produce the necessary institutional changes. Not uncommonly, traditional irrigation uses of water are a focus of these watershed efforts because these uses tend to dominate out-of- stream water use in many areas. One well-known example of a watershed approach is Henry's Fork in Idaho, in which irrigation interests and others interested in improving and protecting streamflows in one of the premier trout fishing streams in the United States found sufficient common benefits to be able to work together with great success (Brown and Swenson, 1995~. In the Yakima Basin of Washington, one of the leading irrigated agricultural areas in the country, agricultural interests spearheaded the formation of the Yakima River Watershed Council in 1994 (Farm Credit Ser

120 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION vices, 1995~. This initiative was motivated by a recognition that the future viability of the agricultural economy in the basin depends on changes in the historical manner in which irrigation water is allocated and used (MacDonnell et al., 1995~. Changes are needed both to enhance the treaty-based salmon and steelhead fisheries in the basin and to better meet existing and changing agricul- tural water uses. For the Columbia River system, the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission has proposed significant changes to the mix of irrigation, hy- dropower, and navigation operations with the goal of improving the condition and quantity of treaty-protected salmon stocks. Irrigated agriculture has become increasingly separated from its urban-based neighbors. Watershed-based approaches to addressing changing water needs offer important opportunities for irrigation interests to connect in a more inte- grated way with emerging interests in other uses of water. They provide a vehicle for educating people about irrigation as well as for exploring ways in which agricultural needs for water can still be met while possibly providing benefits to other users. They provide a potentially important opportunity for irrigation water supply organizations to act positively in representing irrigation interests. Such approaches are no panacea. They can be very time consuming, and their success often depends on intangible factors such as the personalities in- volved. They need to have the full commitment and participation of all key interests for their efforts to bear fruit. They often have funding and staffing problems, and they may be perceived as a threat by those representing traditional institutional interests. Nevertheless, watershed initiatives are taking hold in enough locations that they now represent a distinct and important approach to water management. They will be an important element in determining the future of irrigation. CONCLUSION In order to glimpse the future of irrigation in the face of competing demands for water, it is necessary first to identify and understand the forces of change affecting irrigators and how the farming community is responding. This chapter has addressed three forces of change competition over water supplies, changing economic conditions, and environmental concerns that appear to be the major determinants today in the practice of irrigation. Irrigators are responding to these factors in different ways and at different levels, ranging from the farm level, to the local or regional level (e.g., the irrigation district), to the level of state, federal, and tribal governments. Their responses are affected by developments in science and technology, adaptations within the agricultural community, and re- forms in institutions and policies related to irrigation. When these processes are examined at a national level, certain trends emerge and patterns repeat themselves, making it possible to glean a general understand- ing of the direction of change in irrigation, and possible irrigation "futures." The matrix presented in this chapter (Figure 4.1) provides a framework for examining

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 121 and analyzing patterns of change and response, focusing on but a few of the myriad factors affecting irrigation. This tool is potentially useful for organizing a picture of a highly complex and dynamic activity. At the same time, a limitation of the matrix is that it is static and therefore does not capture the dynamic nature of the pressure-response relationship. The seemingly independent factors that determine both the present and the future of irrigation are, in fact, interactive. Also, over time the adjustments irrigators make will have some feedback effect on the forces of change that caused them. For example, where environmental problems lead to adjustments by the agricultural community to mitigate them, that response may give rise to another pressure or factor for change. Finally, the matrix does not reflect the dimensions of time or spatial scale, which are key elements of sustainability. Some patterns of change and response may take place in a few years, whereas others last many decades. Similarly, these patterns are seen on individual farms, watersheds, or landscapes. Although the forces of change and response described in this chapter are the most significant factors common to the future of irrigation nationwide, the matrix does not account for regional, cultural, and other differences within irrigation as a whole. Change occurs differently and to different degrees depending on the context in which it occurs. Responses are similarly site specific, varying accord- ing to the experience of and technology available to irrigators and the role and capacity of supporting institutions. Competition over developed surface water supplies occurs differently in California than in the Southeast and with different impacts (e.g., increased water prices, institutional changes, demands for new supplies). Whether irrigators respond by selling their rights, improving their irrigation efficiency, or turning to litigation depends on the context. Chapter 5 presents a series of case studies to illustrate the major forces of change affecting irrigation in the agriculture and turfgrass sectors and how irriga- tors in different regions are responding. The case studies provide insights into many questions about the future of irrigation. For example, what are the issues and patterns of change common to irrigation throughout the country, and where do they vary among regions? What are the most significant forces shaping irrigation in a given region? How are irrigators responding? Are these responses of a short-term or long-term nature? Are they likely to significantly transform the industry, or are they merely an adjustment? Are some responses more "success- ful" than others? What are the most limiting factors for irrigation in the future? What opportunities for reform are suggested for the public and private sector institutions related to irrigation, and what should the role of these institutions be? Is the future implied by these changes and responses a sustainable one? To date, agricultural irrigation has demonstrated a remarkable resilience and flexibility in response to changes in market conditions, pesticide and environ- mental regulations, conservation requirements, policy reforms, and even climate change. The net effect of current pressures on irrigation in the United States will depend in large part on how the industry responds and ultimately adapts to these changes.

22 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION NOTES 1. Price is the amount paid or charged for water in a transaction between two people and/or entities. Cost involves two components all the financial outlays of individuals or entities necessary for water to be available (e.g., the costs of constructing and operating conveyance facilities) and other values foregone when the water is removed from its original use. 2. This figure assumes a cost of water of $30 per acre-foot or less, an amount that is on the high end of what most irrigators pay to use water. By comparison, the cost of urban water averages $1.66 per thousand gallons or 16/100 of a cent per gallon, which would include treatment and delivery system. (American Water Works Association, 1992, p. 79.) 3. Lee (1987) has calculated the cost of ground water in the Great Plains with the following equation: WC = 0.0014539*PNG*(Lift +(2.31*PSI)/(EFPMP*EFDS)), where WC = cost of pump- ing per acre-inch, Lift = feet from water table to surface, PSI = pressure requirement in pounds per square inch, PNG = price of natural gas in thousand cubic feet, EFPMP = pump engine efficiency, and EFDS = water distribution efficiency. REFERENCES Bates, S., D. Getches, L. MacDonnell, and C. Wilkinson. 1993. Searching Out the Headwaters: Change and Rediscovery in Western Water. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Beard, D. P. 1993. Blueprint for Reform: The Commissioner's Plan for Reinventing Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C. Beard, D. P. 1994. Remarks before the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Varna, Bulgaria, May 18. Beattie, B. R. 1981. Irrigated Agriculture and the Problems and Policy Alternatives. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 7:289-299 (December). Beattie, B. R., M. D. Frank, and R. D. Lacewell. 1978. The economic value of water in the western United States. In Proceedings of a Conference on Legal, Institutional, and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resource Planning and Management. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Brown, J., and D. Swenson. 1995. The Henry's Fork: Finding mutual interest in the watershed. In Conference on Sustainable Use of the West's Water. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Assessment '87: A New Direction for the Bureau of Reclamation. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation. 1992. Reclamation's Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Recla- mation. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1984. Misuse of Water by Imperial Irrigation District, Decision 1600. Sacramento, Calif.: California State Water Resources Control Board. Carmack, W. J. 1994. Remarks for Workshop on the Future of Irrigation, Irvine, Calif., June 2. Checchio, E., and B. G. Colby. 1993. Indian Water Rights: Negotiating the Future. Tucson, Ariz.: Water Resources Research Center. Cone, D. G., and D. Wichelns. 1993. Responding to water quality problems through improved management of agricultural water. In Symposium on Water Organizations in a Changing West. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Con- gress. EPA 841-R-94-001. Washington, D.C.: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Faeth, P. 1995. Growing Green: Enhancing the Economic and Environmental Performance of U.S. Agriculture. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute. Farm Credit Services. 1995. Yakima water users team up to resolve water issues, Yields Spokane, Wash. August.

FORCES OF CHANGE AND RESPONSES 123 Getches, D. H., L. MacDonnell, and T. Rice. 1991. Controlling Water Use: The Unfinished Bus ness of Water Quality Protection. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Gibbons, D. C. 1986. The Economic Value of Water. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Hillel, D. 1987. The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation. Technical Paper No. 64. New York: The World Bank. Keller, J., and R. D. Bliesner. 1990. Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Keller, A. A., and J. Keller. 1995. Effective Efficiency: A Water Use Efficiency Concept for Allocating Freshwater Resources. Discussion Paper No. 22. Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic Policy Studies, Winrock International. Kromm, D., and S. White. 1992. Ground Water Exploitation in the High Plains. Lawrence, Ks.: University Press of Kansas. Lee, J. G. 1987. Risk implications of the transition to dryland agricultural production on the Texas High Plains. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M Univer sity, College Station. 1~/raac~c~ A a-~1 1) A-~1mrc~- 1 a7Q , .., _ .~ .... And the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth, and Justice in Arid Environments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. MacDonnell, L. 1995. Water banks: Untangling the gordian knot of western water. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute 41:22.1-22.63. MacDonnell, L. 1996. Managing Reclamation Facilities for Ecosystem Benefits. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. MacDonnell, L., and T. Rice, eds. 1993. Instream Flow Protection in the West, rev. ed. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. MacDonnell, L., and T. Rice. 1994. Moving agricultural water to cities: The search for smarter approaches. Hastings West-Northwest Journal 2:27-54. MacDonnell, L., F. L. Brown, C. W. Howe, and T. A. Rice. 1990. The Water Transfer Process as a Management Option for Meeting Changing Water Demands. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. MacDonnell, L., R. Wahl, and B. Driver. 1991. Facilitating Voluntary Transfers of Bureau of Reclamation-Supplied Water. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Marx, J., and S. M. Williams. 1995. Water Rights Administration on Indian Reservation. Proceed- ings, Albuquerque Conference, American Bar Association. Moore, M. R., and C. A. McGuckin. 1988. Program crop production and federal irrigation water. In Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water and Conservation Situation and Outlook. Report AR- 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants Agricultural Research Opportu- nities and Policy Concerns. Board on Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Pp. 83. National Research Council. 1989. Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1992. Water Transfers in the West, Efficiency, Equity, and the Environ- ment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Natural Resources Law Center. 1995. Watershed Sourcebook: Citizen-Initiated Solutions to Natural Resources Problems. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Opie, J. 1993. Ogallala: Water for a Dry Land. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press. Shupe, S. 1982. Waste in western water law: A blueprint for change. University of Oregon Law Review 61:483-510. Solley, W. B., C. F. Merk, R. R. Pierce, and H. A. Perlamn. 1993. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1990. USGS Circular 1801. Stavins, R., and Z. Willey. 1983. Trading Conservation Investments for Water: A Proposal for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to Obtain Additional Colorado River Water by Financing Water Conservation Investments for the Imperial Irrigation District. Berkeley, Calif.: Environmental Defense Fund.

24 A NEW ERA FOR IRRIGATION U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Eco- nomic Research Service, Natural Resources and Environmental Division, Agricultural Hand- book 705. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wahl, R. W. 1995. Natural Resources Subsidies. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Watson, J. R., H. E. Kaerwer, and D. P. Martin. 1992. The Turfgrass Industry. In Turfgrass. Waddington, Carrow, and Shearman, eds. Agronomy Monograph No. 32. Madison, Wis. Ameri- can Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Socity of America, Soil Science Society of America. Wescoat, J. L. 1987. The practical range of choice in water resources geography. Progress in Human Geography 11:41-59. Wilcox, D. S., and M. J. Bean, eds. 1994. The Big Kill: Declining Biodiversity in America's Lakes and Rivers. New York: Environmental Defense Fund. Woolf, S., B. Shepard, F. Peebles, C. Pintler, and J. Cofer. 1994. The on-farm perspective: Trends and challenges. Presntations at Workshop on the Future of Irrigation, National Research Coun- cil, Irvine, Calif., June 2-4. Worster, D. 1985. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity and the Growth of the American West. New York: Pantheon. Wyatt, A. W. 1991. Water management southern High Plains of Texas. In Symposium on Innovation in Western Water Law and Management. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law Center. Young, R. 1984. Local and regional economic impacts. In Water Scarcity: Impacts on Western Agriculture. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Young, T. F., and C. H. Congdon. 1994. Plowing New Ground: Using Economic Incentives to Control Water Pollution from Agriculture. Oakland, Calif.: Environmental Defense Fund. Zilberman, D. 1994. The effect of economics and agricultural policies on the future of irrigation. Presentation for the Workshop on the Future of Irrigation, National Research Council, Irvine, Calif., June 2-4.

Next: 5 THE IRRIGATION INDUSTRY: PATTERNS OF CHANGE AND RESPONSE »
A New Era for Irrigation Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Irrigated agriculture has played a critical role in the economic and social development of the United States—but it is also at the root of increasing controversy. How can irrigation best make the transition into an era of increasing water scarcity? In A New Era for Irrigation, experts draw important conclusions about whether irrigation can continue to be the nation's most significant water user, what role the federal government should play, and what the irrigation industry must do to adapt to the conditions of the future. A New Era for Irrigation provides data, examples, and insightful commentary on issues such as:

  • Growing competition for water resources.
  • Developments in technology and science.
  • The role of federal subsidies for crops and water.
  • Uncertainties related to American Indian water rights issues.
  • Concern about environmental problems.
  • And more.

The committee identifies broad forces of change and reports on how public and private institutions, scientists and technology experts, and individual irrigators have responded. The report includes detailed case studies from the Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest, California, and Florida, in both the agricultural and turfgrass sectors. The cultural transformation brought about by irrigation may be as profound as the transformation of the landscape. The committee examines major facets of this cultural perspective and explores its place in the future. A New Era for Irrigation explains how irrigation emerged in the nineteenth century, how it met the nation's goals in the twentieth century, and what role it might play in the twenty-first century. It will be important to growers, policymakers, regulators, environmentalists, water and soil scientists, water rights claimants, and interested individuals.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!