Coordinating Water Resources in the Federal System: the Groundwater-Surface Water Connection
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Members of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (October 1991) Private Citizens Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Chaimzn, San Francisco, California Mary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Viginia Members of the U.S. Senate Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Dave Durenberger, Minnesota Charles S. Robb, Viginia Members of the U.S. Hour of Representatives Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Craig Tbow Wyoming Ted MUSS, New York Officers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government Debra Rae Anderson, Deputy As&ant to the Resident, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Samuel K. Skinner, Secretaq of Transportation vocaney Governors John Ashcroft, Missouri Booth Gardner, WAshington George A. Sinner, North Dakota Stan Stephens, Montana Mayors Victor II. Ashe, Knoxville Tbnnessee Robert M. Isaac$ colorado springs, Colorado Joseph A. Leafe, Norfolk, Viginia *f=Y Members of State Legislatures David E. Nething, North Dakota Senate Samuel B. Nuneq Jr., President, Louisiana Senate Ted L. Strickbmd, Colorado Senate Elected County Offkials Ann Klinger, Merced County, California, Board of Supervisors James J. Snyder, Cattaraugus County, New York, County Legislature D. Michael Stewart, Salt Lake County, Utah, County Commission Coordinating Water Resources in the Federal System: The Groundwater-Surface Water Connection U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations October 1991 l A-l 18 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 800 K Street, NW South Building Suite 450 Washington, DC 20575 (202) 6533640 FAX (202) 653-5429 ii U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Executive Summary Groundwater appears in basins throughout the Management is defined in terms of functions,not United States. It serves half of the nation’s population in terms of the types of organizations that perform with drinking water and provides significant those functions, thereby recognizing that multiple amounts of the water used for irrigation, livestock, organizational and interorganizational forms maybe and industry. In addition to being an important effective. The functions of conjunctive management source of water supply, groundwater basins are also are: control of overdraft, which in turn involves sources of storage capacity In fact, underground limitations on water withdrawals and assuring suffi- storage has greater capacity than surface storage and cient replenishment regulation of storage capacity; is more desirable in several respects. protection of water quality from degradation result- The value of groundwater basins as sources of ing from management practices; the assignment of water supply and storage has been increasing for management costs; and maintaining adaptability several reasons: (1) increasing water use; (2) greater and error correction capabilities. past development of surface water supplies; (3) Most planned conjunctive management com- increasing concerns about water quality; (4) needs for bines public and private institutions to coordinate the protection of instream flows of surface streams; and conjunctive use of surface and groundwatersupplies. (5) increasing reliance on groundwater supplies for Debates over the proper models of organization- the more highly consumptive uses of water privatization versus centralized public authority- A crucial factor in the determination of the value overlook the experience of groundwater manage- of groundwater supplies-and, hence, the perceived ment and the desirability of a noncentralized, need for improved management - is the very uneven public-private management setting. This helps to distribution of supplies and use, even within regions. define and represent different communities of inter- Groundwater availability and types of basins also est, with real advantages in conjunctive manage- vary throughout the country As a result, most ground- ment, particularly for enhancing efficiency and water management has been initiated by state and equity while maintaining adaptability. local governments, despite increased calls for active The United States has a complex and regulated federal management water economy, involving provider and producer In many cases, state and local governments have organizations (importers, wholesalers, retailers, pursued conjunctive management of groundwater and regulators). This complex water economy in- supplies together with available surface water sup- volves hundreds of thousands of organizations and plies Conjunctive management-the coordination interorganizational relationships, which can be of conjunctive use - exploits the different characteris- understood using the organizing concepts of our tics of surface and groundwater, and coordinates use mixed political economy. and storage so as to increase the total water yield over Conjunctive management calls for the coordinated time; increase reliability of water supply; reduce risks use of surface and groundwater supplies This does not of total loss of supply from quality degradations; and necessarily mquiie organizational integration The lar- lower the costs of construction, transmission, distribu- ge+cale physical facilities and capital investments tion, and maintenance. Conjunctive management required for surface water development call for a (managing surface and groundwater supplies togeth- different scale of organization than groundwater devel- er) is distinguished from integrated management opment This is demonstrated by the fact that most small (managing groundwater supplies and groundwater water systems rely on gnnmdwater while the very large quality together). systems mly primarily on surface water U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations iii Coordination is achieved through a variety of organized as much to seek state and federal water interorganizational arrangements, including con- subsidies as to improve management The subsidiza- tracting. Dispute resolution also is achieved by sever- tion game, whereby local beneficiaries attempt to al means, including negotiating., bargaining and spread costs to the residents of larger jurisdictions, has adjudication. Special districts frequently have been encouraged the overuSe of cheap water supplies and established because their jurisdictional boundaries inhibited improved management can be adjusted to communities of interest, because The federal government has considered several their separate existence increases their financial groundwater management initiatives during the past autonomy, and because they can act as functional decade. Most of these are mandates and conditions of specialist organizations. federal assistance to state and local governments, State and local initiatives to improve manage- despite the fact that the scope of direct federal action ment of groundwater supplies range from central- was expanded by the Supreme Court’s ruling that ized administration of state statutes to local special groundwater is an article of interstate commerce district operations without statewide authority, and (Sporltnse v. Nebmskn, 1982). Mandates and conditions also include interstate and interlocal cooperation and may inhibit innovations. In particular, conditioning coordination. It is impossible to distill a model for financial assistance for water projects on federal state or local groundwater supply management from approval of state or local groundwater management among the many options. programs is likely to be counterproductive if an Nevertheless, important barriers to more effec- approved project develops subsidized and under- tive conjunctive management remain. Most of these priced water supplies barriers are institutional, having to do with the rules Some pending federal action would help to governing behavior and the incentives facing water remove barriers to effective groundwater manage- users. Many states’ water rights rules inefficiently tie ment Increased research, especially on institutional water rights to land ownership, leave water rights arrangements, appropriately organized on a national unquantified, generate disincentives to conserve scale, aids state and local decisionmakers in devising water supplies and to use underground storage, and and implementing effective programs. Increased inhibit transfers of water rights from lower valued to information sharing programs among state and local higher valued uses. Federal laws have created un- governments would also improve the base for man- specified “reserved water rights,” generating addi- agement decisions. tional uncertainties for state and local decision- This report concludes with a set of recommenda- makers. More effective management requires water tions for federal, state, and local contributions to the rights characterized by certainty and flexibility. Most improved management of groundwater supplies. existing systems impose obstacles to both. The recommendations do not include the develop- The continued underpricing of water, whether as ment of additional water supplies, but emphasize a result of local pricing practices, state and federal improving the institutional arrangements for allocat- subsidies, or both, reduces incentives to use water ing, managing, and protecting groundwater supplies conservatively. In many cases, local water users have in a federal system. iv U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Preface Water supply and water quality emerged as that a federal system such as ours in fact has great important issues during the 1970s. Early in the 198Os, organizing and coordinating strengths. former