Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West

A Collaborative Effort of the Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Work Group About this Report

This report summarizes the products of a collaborative effort funded by the Walton Family Foundation to evaluate innovative water sharing strategies, and develop actionable recommendations to improve water sharing opportunities in the Colorado River Basin and Click to see a short throughout the West. The recommendations devel- introductory video in oped as part of this report are relevant for policymak- Windows Media Format ers, stakeholders and government agencies. The report is divided into the following sections: Click to see a short introductory video hosted on YouTube Executive Summary 3 Background 11 Interviews/Strategies 14 “We hope what you read, hear, and see in these pages will inspire you. It will take all of Workshop 27 us working cooperatively to find opportunities for sharing our precious water resources. Recommendations 30 Not just for cities, not just for agriculture, but for the environment.” Quantification Study 38 MaryLou Smith, Next Steps 44 Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State University Glossary/Reference 45 Credits 49

The audio/video links in this document will require access to the internet.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 2 Executive Summary

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 3 Responding to a Challenge from the Western Governors

Water used for agriculture in the Colorado River Ba- One of the first issues the group resolved focused sin and the western United States is increasingly seen on the very nature of water transfers. Some in the as a potential supply for growing urban and environ- group did not want to participate in any process that mental needs. would somehow encourage additional water to be In 2008, the Western Governors’ Association, transferred out of agriculture. An essential first step working through their water arm, the Western States in building the collaborative process was to come to Water Council (WSWC), issued Water Needs and the decision that the group would focus on ways to Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next Steps. One improve sharing of water between multiple sectors, of the next steps identified in the report was that and would not seek to find more ways to unilaterally “…states, working with interested stakeholders, transfer water out of agriculture. should identify innovative ways to allow water trans- And while the group was able to agree on a broad fers from agriculture to urban use while avoiding or range of other issues affecting water sharing projects, mitigating damages to agricultural economies and and appreciate the value of bringing together their environmental values.” diverse interests to develop comprehensive under- This initiative is a direct and independent response to the WGA’s call to action. A diverse Water Sharing Work Group of highly knowledgeable and influential Members of the Agricultural/Urban/ Environmental Water Sharing Work Group water leaders representing the sectors of agriculture, urban interests, and the environment, set aside paro- Nathan Bracken—Western States Water Council—UT chial positions to collaboratively take on the gover- Todd Doherty—Colorado Water Conservation Board—CO nors’ challenge. Bill Hasencamp—Metropolitan Water District—CA Thanks to funding from the Walton Family Foun- Taylor Hawes—The Nature Conservancy—CO Jonne Hower—Western Federal Agency Support Team (WestFAST)—UT dation as part of its Colorado River Basin Freshwater Tom Iseman—Western Governors’ Association—CO Initiative, the Water Sharing Work Group began work Dan Keppen—Family Farm Alliance—OR on this project – Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Pat O’Toole—Family Farm Alliance—WY Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colo- Mark Pifher—Western Urban Water Coalition and Aurora Water—CO rado River Basin and the West. The Colorado Water Jennifer Pitt—Environmental Defense Fund—CO Institute at Colorado State University was selected to Ron Rayner—Tumbling T Ranches—AZ Reagan Waskom—Colorado Water Institute—CO manage the project. Facilitator: MaryLou Smith—Colorado Water Institute—CO

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 4 standing of the issues, they also recognized that there • Quantification study of agricultural water use and was a need for additional dialogue on the role of stor- transfers in the Colorado River Basin. age. Faced with mounting demands to provide water Although WGA and WSWC staff participated in for urban growth and other beneficial uses, includ- this initiative, neither organization has endorsed this ing agriculture, some members of the group identify report or its recommendations. Rather, the report is themselves as pro-stor- the product of the collective efforts of a diverse group age. Others remain leery of stakeholders that formed independently of the of the potential adverse WGA and WSWC to provide the western governors impacts and costs associ- and other policy makers with actionable information ated with some storage and recommendations to use in avoiding or mitigat- projects. However, the ing the adverse impacts of transfers on agricultural group generally ac- communities and environmental values. To this end, cepted the concept that the Group will present this report to the WGA and there may be benefits WSWC in 2011 for their consideration. to properly sized and located storage in certain Interviews and Strategies circumstances, especially Throughout the communities that rely on the Colo- when such projects are rado River, and elsewhere in the West, numerous part of a larger, multiple-benefit strategy. The group new water sharing strategies have been launched in also generally agreed that when projects have the recent years, with others under development. The support of multiple entities, including agriculture, en- historical practice of permanent “buy and dry” type vironmental, and urban players, the regulatory process transfers is beginning to give way to creative water for approval of such projects should be better inte- sharing schemes that attempt to provide water for grated, more conducive to moving forward, and less urban needs while maintaining agricultural and en- embroiled in redundant action by multiple agencies. vironmental benefits. To describe the existing range While coming to consensus on these issues was not of western water sharing strategies that could be quick or easy, the group is proud of its progress. This applied to the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere, report summarizes the results of their collaborative and to learn what has and has not worked in terms process, including the following components of their of multi-use benefit, 50 key players were interviewed. initiative: Interviewees were selected based on their involve- • Interviews with key players and summaries of key ment with innovative or experimental water sharing ongoing water sharing strategies from the Colorado scenarios. Those interviewed include environmental River Basin and the West and natural resources policy experts, irrigation and • Convocation of a workshop of diverse experts, re- environmental engineers, irrigation district man- sulting in the development of water sharing Action agers, economics and law professors, farmers and Recommendations ranchers, state and federal government officials,

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 5 • Storage projects to provide flexibility for maximiz- ing potential to meet multiple needs—agricultural, environmental, and urban • Deficit irrigation to free up consumptive use (CU) for transfer • Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water for maximum beneficial use for agriculture and cities • Improvements in irrigation efficiencies to produce conserved water that can be transferred to urban areas. • Development of collaborative stakeholder processes to help review and speed processing of temporary transfers • Groundwater banking and recharge • Creation of new institutional and business con- structs to facilitate temporary transfers • Development of a “best management practices” municipal water providers, and attorneys. template to guide agricultural transfers Based on those interviews, 11 water transfer • State funding for research and experimentation of scenarios are summarized in this report. These 11 transfer methods alternative to permanent dry up case studies were selected to showcase innovation, of agriculture. geographic areas, and overarching obstacles. All water See glossary on page 45 for a discussion of some of transfer summaries are enhanced with audio clips these terms. from the interviewees themselves. Innovative water sharing strategies highlighted in Workshop and Recommendations this report include: A key component of this project was the convoca- • Agricultural rotational fallowing for urban supply tion of a two-day highly focused workshop bringing through leases together a diverse group of individuals motivated by • Leasing of interruptible supplies for urban their conviction that the status quo will not work – drought relief that change is critical. The goal was to come up with • Split year leases between agriculture and environ- actionable recommendations to improve water shar- mentalists to keep late season water in the stream ing given intensely competing needs, complex regula- for fish

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 6 tions, and variable climate. Thirty-five participants and facilitators met at a ranch above Castle Rock, Colorado, on August 12 and 13, 2010, and came up with the Action Recommendations summarized here. Each recommendation was carefully crafted and vetted to provide practical and concrete steps that states can take to improve and promote water sharing across their watersheds. While it is clearly understood that this is not an exhaustive list, or that additional innovations may not be necessary on a project-specific basis, it is the first such set of recommendations about how to remedy obstacles to innovative water sharing strategies in the Colorado River Basin and the West. It is hoped that these recommendations will help identify incentives and provide guidance for policy makers who are concerned about how we can most effectively others could adopt. These action steps are not meant and fairly plan future water supply. to be limiting, but instead, to be seen as exemplary of Subsequent to the workshop, some have asked why how we could move forward instead of staying stuck participants chose to make what appear to be “um- in a study mode. brella” recommendations, rather than specific sugges- A full-length set of Action Recommendations, tions relevant to the water sharing strategies uncov- carefully wordsmithed to meet the consensus test, can ered in the interviews. The answer is that there are be viewed in its entirety in the full body of this report. any number of recommendations that could be made specific to a given strategy. But those recommenda- Summary of Action Recommendations tions could only be derived from a detailed compara- Pilot an Expedited Water Sharing Program/Project Review Process tive analysis not feasible to accomplish in a two-day In some cases, mutually beneficial water sharing workshop setting. The group chose instead to make programs which have broad support are delayed or recommendations they deemed critical to address abandoned due to lengthy and costly local, state and the overarching obstacles facing all innovative strate- federal review processes. Such programs include many gies for sharing water for multiple benefit, regardless beneficial infrastructure projects which could enhance of state or strategy. In an effort to make the recom- supply reliability for a multitude of parties. Workshop mendations actionable, participants provided specific participants recognize the importance of permitting action steps they believe the western governors and to assure that projects and programs meet a number of desired outcomes. They propose an improved “one-stop-permitting” approach to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure more timely approvals by

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 7 reducing repetitive agency information exchanges. could work much more Participants recommend the following actions, in closely to share infra- summary: structure, time deliveries, • Governors, in collaboration with stakeholders, and reuse water optimal- would identify a multi-use water sharing project ly if we were to develop or program, either structural or non-structural, the tools to simulate the which has broad support of all sectors (agricultural, “what ifs.” Specific rec- urban, and environmental), to pilot an expedited ommendations include: review process. • Support development • Governors would appoint a state liaison to guide of planning tools the project through the local, state and federal ap- for real-time, on- proval process. the-ground decision • Governors would request that the federal govern- making that could be ment appoint a federal designate to be involved in used to develop better all aspects of the review process. operational manage- • The state liaison and federal designate would work ment and inform together to initiate planning and coordination stakeholder driven meetings, and facilitate concurrent review and efforts to consider permitting process and sharing of state and federal mutually beneficial approval resources. water sharing strate- • State liaison would report the outcome of the pilot gies. Basin-scale tools process and suggest recommendations for improv- currently available ing the initiation, review, permitting, approval and model the Colorado’s implementation of water programs. mainstem and large storage projects, but don’t let us • Governors would convene a multi-state team of see how we might connect the dots throughout the agency representatives and stakeholders to review basin to manage water supplies for optimal coop- and evaluate each state’s pilot effort and seek to eration. develop ideas and opportunities for improvement. • Governors would urge state and federal agencies to work cooperatively with stakeholders to identify Foster a Flexible Basin-Wide Approach and implement mechanisms, such as water banking While cognizant of interstate water compacts and or interruptible supply agreements, to help avoid without promoting transfers of water between states economic and environmental disruption in times or even between basins, workshoppers promote of water crisis. looking at basins and systems as a whole, rather than • Promote and enhance Conservation Title funding piecemeal, when looking for water sharing opportuni- to programs such as EQIP and AWEP in the next ties. Agricultural, urban, and environmental interests Farm Bill. These programs are proven to encourage

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 8 wise water use, improve water quality, and enhance Design Robust Stakeholder Processes for the environment throughout the West. Multi-Benefit Water Sharing Solutions Workshoppers outlined characteristics of a robust Clear Obstacles to Implementation of stakeholder process, emphasizing that the design and Creative Water Sharing Strategies implementation of such processes should be given as • States are experiencing varying levels of challenge high a priority as we currently give to the design of with obstacles to innovation and implementation. engineering solutions to water problems. However, participants feel strongly that overarch- • Design structured, facilitated opportunities for ing obstacles cause significant roadblocks for all the diverse stakeholders to experience a constructive water sharing strategies identified. These recom- exchange of perspectives and ideas. mendations are an attempt to address some of the • Initiate stakeholder involvement early, often before most common obstacles. any “formal” process begins. • Governors would appoint cabinet-level State Water • Define expectations and design a process to meet Advocate responsible for empowering the success those expectations. of water sharing programs with broad support. • Groups should be given • State Water Advocate and appropriate state agen- incentives, support and cies could work to reduce the costs associated with resources to engage effec- temporary water sharing arrangements by provid- tively, such as analysis of ing incentives and supporting pilot programs. previous collaborative ef- • Criteria and thresholds should be developed that forts, decision support or define “best management practices” for transfers, funding for small projects much like a check list, that could be used to stream- and studies. line regulatory approvals. • Effective, unbiased, • State Water Advocate could facilitate a cross- research-based public jurisdictional process for regional approaches to education and outreach infrastructure sharing and development to facilitate voluntary, incentive-based water sharing. Quantification Study • Encourage state support for the creation of Quantification of Colorado River Basin agricultural voluntary Water Resource Sharing Zones, similar water use and transfers was provided by Dr. James to economic development zones. Within these Pritchett, Associate Professor of Agriculture and zones, water and financial resources might be Resource Economics at Colorado State University. traded more freely to the benefit of multiple sec- His analysis showed that agriculture in the Colo- tors. Other benefits could include: tax incentives, rado River Basin is valuable and diverse. Farms are infrastructure sharing, or preservation of open- increasingly stratifying into two types: small farms space values in agriculture. which generally supplement household income, and large farms that produce the majority of agricultural

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 9 goods. Irrigated agriculture is becoming less preva- to the Western States Water Council and the Western lent near the urban-rural fringe. Farms are becom- Governors’ Association in 2011. ing more efficient in conveying and applying water. These dedicated water leaders from agricultural, ur- Farms in the Lower Colorado River Basin are more ban and environmental sectors will continue to work likely to make use of groundwater resources when together to encourage action on the part of Western compared to the Upper Basin. Governors and others, to advance the recommenda- Permanent water transfers follow the business cycle tions developed in this report. They will continue to of urban development, but shorter-term leases are tied investigate ways different states in the Colorado River to climatic conditions and weather events. Transactions Basin and the West can take water sharing successes are more prevalent in areas in which physical and mar- and lessons-learned from one area, and transfer them ket infrastructure exists, and these transfers have small- to another. A detailed comparative analysis of the nu- er average size when compared to large-scale transac- merous water sharing strategies currently in place may tions. The greatest number of transactions occurs in be encouraged for additional study. In addition, they Colorado, but the most water has been transferred in will be working through their respective constituent California and Arizona. Several questions remain: if groups to further the work they have begun here. farms are becoming smaller does this imply a fragmen- Special effort will be made to identify laws and tation of water rights? If water rights are increasingly institutions which might be modified to provide more held by more people, will this tend to encourage or flexibility and effectively promote water sharing, while discourage transactions? A more complete description respecting and preserving individual water rights. of this research can be found as special report #21 of It is also anticipated to convene additional groups the Colorado Water Institute (http://www.cwi.colostate. of agricultural, urban and environmental interests edu/publications.asp?pubs=sr). in communities from the Colorado River Basin and throughout the West, to provide opportunities to Next Steps work together, instead of against one another, to meet The Water Sharing Work Group advancing this initia- multiple water use needs. tive and the workshop participants who developed the Action Recommendations, will present this report

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Executive Summary 10 Background

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 11 Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West

n 2008, the Western Governors’ Association, and throughout the West. Work Group participants working through their water arm, the Western are experts from Colorado River Basin states, repre- States Water Council (WSWC), issued Water senting a diverse group of interests, disciplines and INeeds and Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next experiences in agricultural, environmental and urban Steps. One of the next steps identified in the report water use. was that “…states, working with interested stake- One of the first issues the group resolved had to do holders, should identify innovative ways to allow with the very nature of water transfers. Some in the water transfers from agriculture to urban use while group did not want to participate in any process that avoiding or mitigating damages to agricultural would somehow encourage additional water to be economies and environmental values.” transferred out of agriculture. An essential first step In March 2009, this Agricultural/ Urban/Envi- in building the collaborative process was to come to ronmental Water Sharing Work Group formed as an the decision that the group would focus on ways to independent response to the above goal. It consists of improve sharing of water between multiple sectors, highly knowledgeable and influential water leaders and would not seek to find more ways to unilaterally from the agriculture, urban, and environmental sec- transfer water out of agriculture. tors who have worked together over the last two years And while the group was able to agree on a broad to provide the governors with insight and informa- range of other issues affecting water sharing projects, tion to consider as they work to implement their 2008 and appreciate the value of bringing together their Next Steps recommendation. Thanks to funding from diverse interests to develop comprehensive under- the Walton Family Foundation as part of its Colorado standing of the issues, they also recognized that there River Basin Freshwater Initiative, the group was able was a need for additional dialogue on the role of stor- to begin work on this project. The Colorado Water age. Faced with mounting demands to provide water Institute at Colorado State University was selected to for urban growth and other beneficial uses, includ- manage the project. ing agriculture, some members of the group identify In this initiative, the role of the Water Sharing themselves as pro-storage. Others remain leery of the Work Group is to provide expertise and oversight, potential adverse impacts and costs associated with with the goal of providing practical and significant some storage projects. However, the group generally guidance regarding water sharing strategies to the accepted the concept that there may be benefits to Western Governors’ Association, the US Bureau of properly sized and located storage in certain cir- Reclamation to inform its Colorado River Basin study, cumstances, especially when such projects are part and to other key interests in the Colorado River Basin of a larger, multiple-benefit strategy. The group also

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Background 12 generally agreed that when projects have the support of multiple entities, including agriculture, environ- Members of the Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Work Group mental, and urban players, the regulatory process for approval of such projects should be better integrated, Nathan Bracken—Western States Water Council—UT more conducive to moving forward, and less em- Todd Doherty—Colorado Water Conservation Board—CO broiled in redundant action by multiple agencies. Bill Hasencamp—Metropolitan Water District—CA With Walton Family Foundation funding, the Taylor Hawes—The Nature Conservancy—CO Jonne Hower—Western Federal Agency Support Team (WestFAST)—UT group set about to address the following tasks: Tom Iseman—Western Governors’ Association—CO • Interview key players involved or experimenting Dan Keppen—Family Farm Alliance—OR with innovative water sharing strategies to learn Pat O’Toole—Family Farm Alliance—WY what did and did not work in terms of multi-use Mark Pifher—Western Urban Water Coalition and Aurora Water—CO Jennifer Pitt—Environmental Defense Fund—CO benefit. Ron Rayner—Tumbling T Ranches—AZ • Summarize key water sharing strategies and inno- Reagan Waskom—Colorado Water Institute—CO vations from throughout the region Facilitator: MaryLou Smith—Colorado Water Institute—CO • Convene a Workshop of diverse experts to develop water sharing action recommendations applicable across the Colorado River Basin, including specific • Summarize and report these results to the West- recommendations for how to tackle obstacles— ern Governors’ Association via the Western States policy, legal, institutional, financial Water Council, the US Bureau of Reclamation • Quantify agricultural water use and transfers in the to inform its Colorado River Basin study, and to Colorado River Basin other key interests in the Colorado River Basin and throughout the West.

Colorado River Basin Water Sharing Strategies Background 13 Interviews/Strategies

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 14 Water Sharing Strategies: Interviews with Key Players

elected from the Colorado River Basin and else- • Storage projects to provide multi-use benefits where in the West, 50 interviewees were asked and flexibility Click to read summaries to talk about water sharing strategies currently • Development of a “best management practices” of all 50 interviews. Semployed in their watersheds, as well as the obstacles template to guide agricultural transfers they face. From these interviews, 11 innovative water • State funding for research and experimentation of sharing strategies were selected to be showcased in transfer methods alternative to permanent dry up this report. Strategies were chosen to represent differ- of agriculture. ent methodologies, geographic areas, and overarching Interviews showed that in areas where good solu- obstacles. Strategies highlighted in this report include tions have evolved, there are usually conflict resolution the following: champions who do things like hiring experts from • Agricultural rotational fallowing for urban sup- opposing groups to come to the table and generate ply through leases solutions together. • Leasing of interruptible supplies for urban However, interviews also clearly showed that states drought relief are experiencing varying levels of challenge with • Split year leases between agriculture and envi- obstacles to innovation. The state whose interviewees ronmentalists to keep late season water in the expressed the least concern was Utah, where it appears stream for fish that water is being transferred from agricultural lands • Deficit irrigation to free up consumptive use to urban lands almost entirely by urban development (CU) for transfer moving onto previously agricultural ground, a pattern • Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface which does not have many of the economic disad- water for maximum beneficial use for agriculture vantages of removing water from agricultural land for and cities transfer to geographically remote urban areas. • Improvements in irrigation efficiencies to pro- Interviewers found among those interviewed a duce conserved water that can be transferred to keen awareness of how institutions hinder innovation. urban areas. Most believe institutions are rigid and need to evolve. • Groundwater banking and recharge One example is that in most states, conservation isn’t • Development of collaborative stakeholder pro- seen as a beneficial use. Those interviewed in states cesses to help review and speed processing of where transfers must go through a court system were temporary transfers frustrated at the high cost of transacting creative water • Creation of new institutional and business con- sharing solutions. Those from states with an adminis- structs to facilitate temporary transfers trative system reported frustrations, but generally less conflict and more cooperation. Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 15 Arkansas Basin Roundtable Develops Template for Ag to Urban Water Transfers

Reeves Brown: rancher, and member of Arkansas Basin Roundtable, Colorado

The Arkansas Basin Roundtable is one of nine groups well as by communities and other third parties who created by the Colorado legislature in 2005 to bring would be affected. It is structured around three together stakeholders in each of the state’s major water focus areas: Considerations, Questions, Mitigation. basins to address projected future gaps between water What are the considerations to be addressed when supply and demand. The roundtables have brought a contemplating a transfer? What questions should be greater diversity of stakeholders to the table such as asked specific to each of those considerations? What environmental interests who earlier were often left out mitigation might be needed? Considerations range of water conversations. from effects on water quality, to the size of a transfer The Arkansas Basin, covering most of the southeast relative to an affected area. An example of a question quadrant of the state, has lost some 15 percent of its is, “Will the transfer reduce the tax base of the af- irrigated agriculture to urban water transfers since fected areas?” An example of a mitigation strategy is, Listen to 1950. Projections are for the basin to lose that much “Assist in agricultural modernization such as niche Reeves Brown [email protected] more by 2030. Agricultural and urban stakeholders on market development.” the roundtable did not see eye-to-eye on what to do The Arkansas Basin Roundtable adopted the about ag to urban transfers, so the roundtable created report, with virtually all members impressed with its a Water Transfer Guidelines Committee to answer breadth and depth. However, they could not agree the question, “If water is going to be transferred from on what action should be taken in response to it, agriculture, how can it be done without harming rural splitting into three primary points of view: 1) If the communities and other third parties to the transac- guidelines don’t form the basis for new water transfer tions?” After two years of intense facilitated meetings regulation, we are only giving lip service to the rights they produced a template detailing factors to be taken of third parties such as rural communities. 2) The into account if and when transfers take place. State guidelines should not result in regulation. Nothing leaders cited it as an exemplary process: stakeholders should come between willing buyer, willing seller on opposite sides of the table working out their differ- in agricultural water transfers. 3) The guidelines ences to cooperatively tackle a significant issue with raise consciousness about the effects of transfers on high stakes. agriculture and rural communities. Now we should The template is intended for use by buyers and turn our attention to creative incentives for keeping sellers putting together a water transfer deal, as agriculture in the valley—without transfers.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 16 A Market Transaction Approach in New Mexico

Beth Bardwell: New Mexico Audubon, New Mexico

Recent Federal review of Rio Grande river manage- approve or deny the transfers under existing district ment wasn’t satisfying either irrigators or environ- policies. They don’t lose any water-righted acreage, it’s mentalists. The Elephant Butte Irrigation District just going to a different crop. (EBID) was not happy with the preferred alternative But there are many obstacles ahead, namely endan- coming out of the National Environmental Policy Act gered species issues, agency approvals, and money. (NEPA) process, because it would reduce depletions As a point of departure, ag-environment in-district from agriculture without acquiring agricultural water transfers have not previously been allowed within the rights. Environmental groups, such as New Mexico US Bureau of Reclamation’s Rio Grande Project, a (NM) Audubon, did not like the preferred alternative single purpose project authorized solely for irrigation. because they didn’t consider it far-reaching enough. Although there is some precedent in this regard, they Believing they could come up with something better, are forging into unresolved territory. Listen to the two groups began to collaborate on a variety of In addition, some water rights NM Audubon Beth Bardwell [email protected] water sharing strategies. acquires may provide habitat for species susceptible to A key component was to simplify environmental being listed as threatened or endangered, specifically water transactions within EBID’s existing framework. the Southwest Willow Flycatcher. EBID is worried that Conceptually, irrigating for habitat is like irrigating in dry years, species will get precedence over agricul- for a crop. So NM Audubon and EBID are currently ture. EBID and NM Audubon are working with US developing an environmental water transaction Fish and Wildlife to get assurance that if EBID takes program where Audubon can buy water rights from these proactive steps now, they can be assured that willing sellers. water shortages will be shared in low water years. Then Audubon asked EBID whether they could And, of course, where should the money come become an EBID constituent, just as if they were a from to buy water rights? Private groups? The Federal farmer. EBID agreed. EBID routinely does surface government? Audubon hopes to find funding for what water transfers from one farmer to another without can be billed as mitigation, water credits or “environ- permits from the State Engineers Office. EBID is kept mental services.” whole in the transfer, and they have the authority to

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 17 Colorado Investigates Alternative Transfer Methods via a $3M Grant

Andy Jones: grant recipient and water attorney, Colorado

Since its inception in 2007, the Alternative Trans- An additional project in the South Platte River fer Methods Grant Program of the Colorado Water Basin, supported by the Parker Water & Sanitation Conservation Board (CWCB) has so far awarded District and Colorado State University, involves a $1.5 million to water providers, ditch companies, and four-year study to quantify savings in consumptive university groups to fund projects investigating the water use from deficit irrigation. By reducing the technical, legal, institutional and financial incentives amount of water irrigated crops consume, the differ- needed for successful alternative water transfers. ence between historic and future consumptive use can In the Lower Arkansas River Valley, grant funding be computed. With approval of the State Engineer’s is providing for continued economic and engineer- Office, it is believed that this volume of water could be ing analyses of the Super Ditch Company which transferred to municipal use. recently incorporated to provide a venue for irrigators A second round of grants in 2011, to total another Listen to to collectively lease agricultural water to cities while $1.5 million, will fund activities which build on the Andy Jones [email protected] maintaining long term ownership of the water. first set of projects, digging deeper into obstacles and Colorado State University Cooperative Extension is how they might be overcome. The CWCB expects to conducting a four-year study to assess various techni- fund projects which investigate: cal aspects of returning fallowed land to production • Barriers to acceptance of alternative transfer meth- and maintaining or improving crop yields on those ods by cities and farmers lands. The study is ongoing through 2012 with test • Further technical analysis of transferable con- plots in the Arkansas River Basin. sumptive use Another grant funded the Colorado Corn Grow- • Administrative and legal barriers ers Association, working with Ducks Unlimited and • Institutional framework and water supply deliv- the City of Aurora, to develop three demonstration ery options necessary to implement an alternative projects in the South Platte River Basin northeast transfer method of Denver. Two are wetlands projects designed to • Potential third party concerns. recharge the alluvial aquifer, which can be used to augment out-of-priority groundwater pumping. The third demonstration project is creating a marketing mechanism and business plan for water transfers.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 18 Keeping Farmers on the Land and Fish in the Stream in the Pacific Northwest

David Pilz: Freshwater Trust, Oregon

The Freshwater Trust works with landowners and cuttings, and the fish get water when they need it in irrigation districts in the Pacific Northwest to buy the middle of July. and lease water for instream flows. Their goal is to Navigating state requirements for changing water keep farmers on the land, and more water in the rights to instream flows, on a permanent or temporary streams. And they have funding to help do it— basis, can be a complicated and lengthy process. In some $600 thousand to one million dollars each each case, The Freshwater Trust is looking for ways to year paid out by the Bonneville Power Administra- make the process less onerous for all involved. tion as part of mitigation for their storage projects This was the challenge along the upper Lostine in the Columbia River Basin. River. The Trust was looking to get more water in A typical Freshwater Trust deal often involves the stream, but was faced with five irrigation ditch connecting with local landowners who own key companies and more than 100 landowners. Rather Listen to water rights in a given area. According to senior flow than contracting with each irrigator individually, David Pilz [email protected] restoration manager David Pilz, initially there was a they decided to contract specifically with the ditch push to buy the water rights, but they have learned companies, and came up with a management agree- that many projects don’t need to involve outright ment to leave a certain amount of water in the river purchases. at certain times—without changing their water One example of a water purchase scenario took rights. Since the water rights weren’t modified, state place on the Austin Ranch along the Middle Fork of regulation wasn’t necessary, and the process be- the John Day River where they worked with rancher came much simpler. The Freshwater Trust monitors Pat Voigt. (Click here to see a short video documentary upper Lostine River flows twice during the season, of this project). Their strategy in this case was to get and after each sends a check to the irrigation dis- Voigt’s agreement to shorten his irrigation season, tricts. ending hay production in the middle of July instead These and numerous other projects are keeping the of September. Although he loses his third cutting Freshwater Trust focused on a clear objective to main- of hay, he gets to keep the first two most productive tain and restore rivers’ biodiversity, while preserving an understanding and appreciation for agriculture.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 19 Imperial Irrigation District Conservation Provides Water for Urban Use

John Eckhardt, Imperial Irrigation District, California Halla Razak, San Diego County Water Authority, California

In Southern California, municipalities partner with ir- years and critical legislation, but by October 2003 a rigation districts and pay for irrigation delivery system series of comprehensive water sharing agreements, improvements, on-farm irrigation efficiency enhance- called the “Quantification Settlement Agreements” ments, land fallowing programs, and environmental were completed to ultimately provide an additional conservation—so they can use the conserved water. 280,000 acre-feet of water annually to the San Diego How did these complex agreements come about? region and 103,000 acre-feet annually to the Coach- As demands for Colorado River water increased in ella Valley. other states, California had to find a way to reduce In the ramp-up period, conserved water would be its deliveries from the river. For many years, more provided by both fallowing and conservation mea- than half the water the Metropolitan Water District sures. Following a 24-year ramp-up, all the water will (MWD) supplied to southern California was water come from conservation measures. During the past Listen to not needed by other Colorado River Basin States. In seven years, the IID has developed a detailed road- John Eckhardt [email protected] 2003, for the first time, California was limited to its map for how to conserve water for transfer, including annual Colorado River apportionment of 4.4 million water delivery system improvements and a volun- acre-feet. Agricultural to urban water transfers, rather tary on-farm incentive-driven irrigation efficiency than significant new capital projects, were seen as the improvement program. best method to voluntarily bring water into urban The IID-SDCWA transfer is fundamental to the areas. Additionally, San Diego County Water Author- Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agree- ity (SDCWA) was looking for independent supplies of ment and California staying within its 4.4 million water. acre-feet apportionment. Over the life of the agree- Given the Imperial Valley’s geographic proxim- ment’s 45-year term nearly 30 million acre-feet of ity to San Diego and the more than 3 million acre- water will be moved from agricultural to primarily feet per year of water under the Imperial Irrigation urban use and to-date over 550,000 acre-feet has District (IID) control, IID became a logical partner been transferred. Two remaining challenges are with SDCWA. IID already had an agreement where resolution of a legal issue concerning the consti- Listen to MWD would fund conservation measures and tutionality of the State backstopping funding for Halla Razak receive up to 110,000 acre-feet annually, but addi- environmental mitigation and the State fulfilling its [email protected] tional conservation actions were available. It took 10 legislative obligation to restore the Salton Sea.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 20 Small Storage Project and Coalition Building Benefit Agriculture and the Environment in Wyoming

Larry Hicks: Little Snake River Conservation District, Wyoming

In 1984, the Wyoming Legislature authorized a water and conservation organizations, and government storage project in the Little Snake River Basin to miti- entities—local, state, and federal. They also leveraged gate shortages caused by Wyoming’s only large trans- construction funds from multiple sources, includ- basin diversion, which took place in the early 1980s ing the US Department of Interior, Natural Resource and removed 21,000 acre-feet of water from the basin. Conservation Service (NRCS), Wyoming Wildlife & The mitigation, a 23,000 acre-foot reservoir, took Natural Resources Trust Fund, US Fish and Wildlife over 20 years to permit and build, but now provides a Service-PFW, and Wyoming Water Development fishery, recreation, and late season irrigation water for Commission. ranchers in this Colorado River headwaters basin. Project proponents feel that the High Savery Dam Wetland and stream channel impacts had to be and Reservoir Project can provide a template for how mitigated in order for the High Savery Dam and to bring in all the players to work together, and how Listen to Reservoir to be permitted. In addition, the Little water storage can give a community the flexibility it Larry Hicks [email protected] Snake River Conservation District also significantly needs to support local fisheries, improve agricultural enhanced environmental attributes along the river irrigation, and provide a buffer against energy and corridor to maximize the benefits of the stored water. municipal water demands. They installed multiple structures and restored stream A difficult permitting process, as well as strong channels and riparian zones to enhance fisheries and local collaboration, make this small storage project a terrestrial wildlife habitat for 25 miles along Savery good example of water sharing lessons learned. The Creek from the dam to the Little Snake River. In the story of this storage project is instructive not only for end, they will have modified every diversion structure the multiple hurdles it overcame, but also as an exam- in the Little Snake Basin for fish passage. ple of how even small projects can leverage resources These efforts have resulted from building a broad and build relationships to make watershed improve- coalition among the agricultural community, wildlife ments that benefit agriculture and the environment.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 21 Sustainable Surface and Groundwater Management Benefits Cities, Farmers and Fish

Curt Aikens: Yuba County Water Agency, California

Flood Control and Water Supply in the Lower Yuba River. The conflict was not resolved Yuba County in the heart of California’s Central Valley until 20 years later, when 18 entities entered into an has historically faced severe flood control and water interest-based negotiation and completed the Lower supply problems. To confront these problems, com- River Yuba Accord. munity leaders established the Yuba County Water The accord has three main agreements. The first Agency (YCWA) in 1959 to serve not just farmers, but establishes significantly higher instream flows for wild all of Yuba County. One year later, 92 percent of the salmon and steelhead on the Lower Yuba River, up to voters supported a large revenue bond to build New 170,000 acre-feet of additional water annually. These Bullards Dam and Reservoir to deliver surface water higher flows are invaluable to one of the last wild to local farmers and reduce flood risk. salmon runs in California’s Central Valley. The second Completed in 1970, the project resolved issues assures annual water transfers to California’s Natural Listen to related to the division of the county into north and Resources Agency for fish and wildlife, and to cities Curt Aikens [email protected] south basins, with the north relying on surface water and farms who receive their water supplies from the diversions from the Yuba River, and the south unsus- State Water Project and Central Valley Project. YCWA tainably drawing on groundwater. With new surface is currently transferring on average 150,000 acre- water deliveries to the southern part of the county, the feet of water annually, and using the revenues from groundwater aquifer was restored to historic levels. transfers to improve fisheries habitat and strengthen Farmers voluntarily agreed to forgo their surface water flood control levees. The third agreement establishes a and the water was transferred to cities. Irrigators were series of conjunctive use agreements with seven local paid for the transfer, then pumped groundwater to irrigation districts. Actively managing both surface irrigate their crops. YCWA’s progressive groundwater and groundwater resources enables YCWA and the management plans have helped the agency pioneer the districts to be better stewards of their water rights and responsible transfer of water supplies from agricul- water supplies, which strengthens agricultural produc- tural to urban uses. tivity. YCWA’s leadership through the accord is an ex- Instream Flows and the Lower Yuba River Accord ample of how agricultural, environmental and urban In 1988, a fishing alliance complained that the project water sharing strategies can be enhanced. was reducing instream flows to the detriment of fish

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 22 Farmers Use Surface Water from Central Arizona Project, Bank Groundwater for Future Use by Cities

Brian Betcher, Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District, Arizona

In 1990, Arizona passed legislation to allow farmers concern, such as these districts, as well as to provide a to use Central Arizona Project (CAP) water allocated supply of renewable water for anticipated growth. to cities, in order to leave more groundwater in place However, when first made available to the districts, for future use by those cities. This supplemented CAP the cost of CAP water was high relative to the cost surface water supplies already available to irrigated of pumping, so farmers continued to rely on their agriculture. The idea was that cities with unused al- groundwater supplies. Over time, the various irriga- lotments on the Colorado River could make them tion districts worked with CAP to develop pricing available to farmers at an incentivized rate, instead of programs that would incentivize their collective use losing the water downstream to other users. Farmers of Colorado River water in order to reduce continued who would otherwise be pumping groundwater to groundwater pumping. irrigate their crops, agreed to use the cities’ allotments Banking groundwater for future use by cities Listen to of CAP water instead, and leave groundwater in place. became an additional tool. Some irrigation districts Brian Betcher [email protected] Cities who sign onto this program gain “storage” made deals directly with nearby cities. But others, like credits which allow them to pump the “stored CAP MSIDD, partnered with the Arizona Water Banking water” in future years for drought mitigation or to Authority (AWBA). The AWBA, created by statute supply urban growth. Farmers also participate in “in in 1996, acts on behalf of all municipal and indus- lieu recharge” programs through irrigation districts trial users who have a basic CAP allocation and wish such as the Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage to participate in these programs. The AWBA is also District (MSIDD) in south-central Arizona. responsible for administering in-lieu water storage for Before MSIDD built its canal system allowing farm- the State of Nevada. MSIDD has “stored” a significant ers to access Colorado River water from the Central amount of water on behalf of the AWBA and Nevada. Arizona Project, farmers exclusively pumped ground- According to University of Arizona professor Bon- water to irrigate the 80,000 acres in the project. Prior nie Colby, the availability of CAP surface water creates to CAP water availability, farmers in both MSIDD a unique opportunity to provide credits in lieu of and its sister district, the Central Arizona Irrigation pumping groundwater—allowing groundwater in and and Drainage District, each pumped between 300-400 around Maricopa to recharge. She points out, how- thousand acre-feet of groundwater per year. The CAP ever, that the reality of urbanization means this will be was built largely to reduce groundwater pumping in a temporary opportunity to manage resources. those areas of the state where aquifer depletion was a

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 23 Palo Verde and MWD’s Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program

Ed Smith: Palo Verde Irrigation District, California

In 2001, the Palo Verde Irrigation District came to- lates into cash payments of $110,900 in 2004 for the gether with the Metropolitan Water District of South- one-time sign-up and annual payments ranging from ern California (MWD) to develop a land manage- $6,100 to $23,800 in 2010. Landowners have to allow ment, crop rotation and 35-year water supply program a fallowing easement on up to 35 percent of their providing up to 111,000 acre-feet of agricultural water farms, fallow lands based on MWD’s call, implement per year for urban use. Participants committed to sta- land management plans, provide program-related bilize the farm economy in the Palo Verde Valley, and data, and pay irrigation district water tolls and taxes. support the $800 billion economy of Southern Califor- Impacts of land fallowing can reach far into a nia. An important component of the transfer involves community, and many cannot be accurately pre- funding of community improvement programs to help dicted into the future. To address these concerns mitigate any third party impacts from the program. and help compensate the Palo Verde community Listen to Fallowing is a key component of this water trans- as a whole, in 2002 a nine-member Community Ed Smith [email protected] fer strategy. The program stipulates that approxi- Improvement Program was established from a cross- mately 6,000 to 26,500 acres will be fallowed every section of local business and community leaders. year district-wide. District fallowing amounts vary The group oversees distribution of six million dollars year to year, depending on MWD’s water demands, provided by MWD in 2004 for community improve- but annually there is a minimum of seven percent of ment programs such as education and job retraining the district’s acreage fallowed, with a maximum of 29 of workers impacted by the fallowing. percent. In response to a drought emergency declared For participation in the program, farmers received by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2009, Palo Verde a one-time payment of $3,170 per encumbered acre also agreed to participate in a one year, short-term in 2004. In addition, they are paid an annual pay- supplemental fallowing program, separate from ment of $602 per non-irrigated acre starting the first the existing 35-year program. Farmers voluntarily year of the program in 2005, with an agreed upon fallowed up to an additional 15 percent of their price escalation for the following years which in 2010 irrigated land in return of a one-time payment of increased the annual payment to $681 per non-irri- $1,665 per non-irrigated acre. The one-year program gated acre. On an average 100-acre farm, this trans- terminated in 2010.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 24 Irrigators Negotiate Municipal Water Leases, Keep Water Ownership

Peter Nichols: general counsel for the Super Ditch Company, Colorado

In the lower Arkansas Valley of Colorado, almost An early obstacle was that ditch companies were 80,000 acres of farmland have been dried up and the hesitant to sign on without knowing what the leases water transferred to cities since 1950—about 15 per- would look like, but potential leases weren’t likely cent of historically irrigated land. A similar amount until there was a leasing entity in place. The solution is projected to be lost to “buy and dry” in the next 20 was for individual ditch company shareholders to years. Concerned about economic and social effects in incorporate the Super Ditch. Now, with two let- rural communities, voters formed the Lower Arkansas ters of lease intent in hand, efforts are underway to Valley Water Conservancy District in 2002 to address convince three of the ditches to change their articles the issue. of incorporation and/or bylaws to allow shareholder Inspired by Metropolitan Water District of South- participation. ern California’s lease of water from irrigators of the Other obstacles still to be faced include county Listen to Palo Verde Irrigation District, they set about to see permits and the required State Water Court cases to Peter Nichols [email protected] if ditch company shareholders in the lower Arkansas exchange water to the point of delivery to munici- Valley might band together to lease water to municipalities and change the type and place of use of the palities as an alternative to further permanent trans- water rights. These cases are expected to be compli- fers. They formed the “Super Ditch” in short order. cated—perhaps the largest such cases ever filed in It is not actually a ditch at all, but instead a collective Colorado. To allow the leases to move forward, the bargaining agent for irrigators to voluntarily cease Super Ditch expects to operate under a substitute irrigation on part of their land and temporarily lease water supply plan approved by the State Engineer irrigation water to cities and others. Engineering and while the cases are pending in water court, although economic studies showed the concept to be feasible, the company is exploring a change in state law to and a steering committee of farmers began to work allow an administrative approval of leases without out the details. water court adjudication. Despite these hurdles, The foundation of the Super Ditch is for farmers Super Ditch participants are determined to stay the to pool some of their water and lease it—not sell it— course. Says one stakeholder, “This is the best chance allowing them to reap the long-term appreciation of we have to save our water.” the water as an asset while benefitting from an ongoing lease revenue stream.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 25 Working Group Helps Make Temporary Transfers Quick and Efficient During Times of Drought

Bob Barwin, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington

The state of Washington has long been interested in approval criteria. Using this process in 2001, 40,000 developing effective ways to facilitate the voluntary acre-feet were transferred in just four months. The transfer of water while preserving existing water process was repeated in 2005, with even better results. rights and providing water for presently unmet and They not only transferred 50,000 acre-feet in just two future needs. Transfers are seen as achieving a variety months, but the quality of proposals was better so of water resource management objectives, including that impairment and consumptive use issues could be drought response, improving streamflows, and reserv- more easily and quickly ironed out. ing water supply for future uses. The Yakima Basin Water Transfers Working Group The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Proj- is a strictly voluntary group of professional water ect was established in 1994 to address the dual prob- managers, engineers, hydrogeologists, fisheries biolo- lems of salmon habitat degradation and inadequate gists, irrigation districts, law firms and the like. There Listen to dry year irrigation water supply, by facilitating ways of is no chartered attendance; they all go to the sched- Bob Barwin [email protected] making water supply in the Yakima more flexible and uled meetings as they wish. They are there to review responsive to current needs. An advisory committee proposals and provide input. They look to identify was formed to consider more innovative ways to free and resolve problems. For instance, if there is a return up water for current needs, such as water transfers, flow issue, there is enough experience in the room to water banking, dry year options, and the sale and leas- answer it. They all have sufficient knowledge of how ing of water for agricultural users and instream flows. the Yakima Project operates. The Working Group During the 2001 drought year, the water enhance- provides a venue for getting objectors together ahead ment project advisory committee came up with the of time to work out conflicts. The head of the Depart- idea of the Yakima Basin Water Transfers Working ment of Ecology listens to the whole group and then Group and a process to facilitate quick and efficient decides what to recommend to the Superior Court or, temporary transfers. The Working Group would re- in the case of permanent transfers, whether to ap- view proposed transfer requests and make recommen- prove, deny, or condition an application to change a dations to both the state Department of Ecology and water right. There is no statutory authority for him the Bureau of Reclamation who in turn would recom- to impose what the group thinks, but the group has mend water users’ motions to the Superior Court for credibility. It exists because it is relevant. The Working temporary transfers, if they met the Working Group’s Group continues to meet at least monthly.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Interviews/Strategies 26 Workshop

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 27 Tackling Obstacles to Water Sharing Strategies

key component of this project was the con- brought you to this place in your life where you are so vocation of a two-day workshop bringing to- engaged with water? The second assignment asked: gether some of the best minds in the business What “ingredients” do you have to share with the Click to see video of Ato come up with real-world solutions to the challenges group—the raw material from which we will build an workshop participants of sharing water in a world with intensely competing understanding and actionable policy recommenda- and process in Windows Media Format needs, complex regulations, and variable climate. They tions? committed their time because they are convinced that This homework served at least two purposes. First, Click to see a short the status quo has to be changed. Thirty-five par- all participants were given a quick preview of the full introductory video ticipants and facilitators met at a ranch above Castle range of experience and vision of the entire group. hosted on YouTube Rock, Colorado, on August 12 and 13, 2010, and set Secondly, the responses of individual participants about to develop specific, actionable recommenda- helped the Work Group design the workshop process. tions for how to remove obstacles to innovative water At the workshop, participants were divided into sharing strategies. four sub-groups, each addressing one of the follow- The Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water ing themes identified from the interview process and Sharing Work Group selected workshop participants participants’ background information: from those participating in the earlier interviews. All • Improving the State and Federal Regulatory/ members of the Work Group also participated in the Statutory/Oversight Process workshop. A representative mix of practitioners and • A Flexible, Watershed Based Approach academics added to the strength of the group as did • Water Sharing Transaction Strategies a mix of those falling in the categories of attorney, • Creating Positive Stakeholder Processes for engineer, farmer, economist, professor, policy ana- Sharing Water lyst, irrigation district manager, and municipal water The resulting recommendations from each of the provider. Several participants are in their 30s; one sub-groups were then vetted and agreed upon by the participant tops 90! entire group. These recommendations provide the In advance of the workshop, participants were basis for the Action Recommendations detailed in asked to complete two assignments. The first assign- this report. ment asked: Who are you? What experiences/insights

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Workshop 28 Workshop Participants, including members of the Agricultural/ Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Work Group

Curt Aikens—Yuba County Water Agency—CA Pat O’Toole—Family Farm Alliance—WY Beth Bardwell—Audubon New Mexico—NM David Pilz—Freshwater Trust—OR Brian Betcher—Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation District—AZ Jennifer Pitt—Environmental Defense Fund —CO Peter Binney—Black and Veatch—CO Mark Pifher—Western Urban Water Coalition and Aurora Nathan Bracken—Western States Water Council—UT Water—CO Reeves Brown—3R Ranches—CO Ron Rayner—Tumbling T Ranches—AZ Bonnie Colby—University of Arizona—AZ Halla Razak—San Diego County Water Authority—CA Todd Doherty—Colorado Water Conservation Board—CO Adam Schempp—Environmental Law Institute—Washington John Eckhardt—Imperial Irrigation District—CA DC Bill Hasencamp—Metropolitan Water District—CA Loretta Singletary—University of Nevada Extension Taylor Hawes—The Nature Conservancy—CO Service—NV Larry Hicks—Lower Snake Water Conservancy District— Morgan Snyder—Walton Family Foundation—Washington WY DC Jonne Hower—Western Federal Agency Support Team Dick Wolfe—Colorado State Engineers Office—CO (WestFAST)—UT Facilitators Tom Iseman—Western Governors’ Association—CO MaryLou Smith—Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State Ron Jacobsma—Friant Irrigation District—CA University—CO Andy Jones—Lind, Lawrence & Ottenhoff Law Firm—CO James Pritchett—Colorado State University—CO Jack Keller—Keller-Bleisner Engineering—UT Reagan Waskom—Colorado Water Institute, Colorado State Dan Keppen—Family Farm Alliance—OR University—CO Larry MacDonnell—University of Wyoming—WY Vince Roos—Facilitator—CA Peter Nichols—Trout, Raley, Montaño, Witwer & Freeman John Foster—Facilitator—CO Law Firm—CO Tara Steckley—Facilitator—CO

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Workshop 29 Recommendations

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 30 Recommendations: Targeting Overarching Obstacles to Water Sharing Strategies

hen this project was conceived, the West- not feasible to accomplish in a two-day workshop ern States Water Council and the Walton setting. The group chose instead to make recom- Family Foundation made it clear they mendations they deemed critical to address the Wwanted this collaboration to result in real-world guid- overarching obstacles facing all innovative strategies ance, not merely an academic overview or a listing of for sharing water for multiple benefit, regardless of complaints. This thinking provided the basis for these state or strategy. In an effort to make the recommen- Action Recommendations. dations actionable, participants provided specific The guidance contained in these Action Recom- action steps they believe the Western Governors and mendations is designed to help improve water sharing others could make. These action steps are not meant scenarios, including specific recommendations for to be limiting, but instead, to be seen as exemplary of how to tackle obstacles—policy, legal, institutional, how we could move forward instead of staying stuck and financial. It is also hoped that these recommenda- in a study mode. tions will help identify incentives and provide guid- Workshoppers felt strongly that overarching ance for policy makers who are concerned about how obstacles cause significant roadblocks for all of the we can most effectively and fairly plan future water strategies. Mindfulness of these obstacles strongly supply. Though these recommendations are directed influenced their development of recommendations. It at the Colorado River Basin, most if not all are rel- is their hope that action to pursue these recommenda- evant to the whole of the West. tions will significantly open up opportunities for all Subsequent to the workshop, some have asked the water sharing strategies to move forward. why participants chose to make general recommen- In addition, the group feels that the gamut of water dations, rather than specific suggestions relevant sharing strategies West-wide should be explored to the water sharing strategies uncovered in the more fully so that lessons learned from each could be interviews. The answer is that there are any number of recommendations that could be made specific to a given strategy. But those recommendations could only be derived from a detailed comparative analysis

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 31 applied to other states or watersheds. This sort of de- • The state liaison and federal designate would work tailed, comparative analysis of the multitude of water together to establish milestones and ensure they sharing strategies currently in place would be complex are met in the review, processing, permitting and and require extensive research, but may take place in a approval of the project. later study. • The state liaison and federal designate would work together in initiating planning and coordination Recommendation: Piloting an Expedited meetings of parties with affected interests, and Water Sharing Program Review Process facilitate concurrent review and permitting process A number of water programs can be undertaken to and sharing of state and federal approval resources. promote the sharing of water between sectors. Such This “one-stop-permitting” approach would im- water sharing programs are broadly considered to in- prove efficiency by reducing costs and repetitive clude features such as contracts, leasing arrangements, agency information exchanges and by ensuring water banks, infrastructure improvements, environ- more timely approval. mental restoration, and related projects. The process • The process should include the best available infor- for initiating, reviewing, permitting, approving and mation. implementing such water sharing programs can be • The review should support adaptive management adversarial, costly and time consuming. In some cases, processes if adjustments or mitigation is necessary mutually beneficial water programs with broad, multi- to protect the future interests of affected parties. sector support may be delayed or abandoned under • The state government liaison would report the the current review paradigm. In order to learn how outcome of the pilot processes and suggest recom- the process may be improved, the workshop partici- mendations for improving the initiation, reviewing, pants recommend a pilot expedited review process in permitting, approving and implementation of water each state. The pilot could involve the following steps: programs. Governors could convene a group of • Governor, in collaboration with stakeholders, agency representatives and stakeholders to review would identify a multi-use water sharing project and evaluate each state’s pilot effort and seek to or program which has broad support to pilot an develop ideas and opportunities for improvement. expedited review process. • Governor would appoint a liaison with experience in the regulatory arena to guide the project through the local, state and federal approval process. • Governor would request that the federal government appoint a lead federal party designate to be involved in all aspects of the review process.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 32 Recommendation: Fostering a Flexible tool should include contributions for agricultural, Basin-Wide Approach environmental, tribal and urban needs across the Ba- Watersheds are highly interconnected, complex sin, and improve tools that currently only model the systems; however, current management of water Colorado’s mainstem and largest storage projects. resources does not always recognize the complexity A sufficiently comprehensive planning tool ensures of these interrelationships. The workshop participants holistic examination of management strategies in the believe that coordinating decisions about water infra- basin by first benchmarking the current use of water structure, storage, release, and other programs at the resources including water quality, quantity and timing watershed level would lead to solutions for agriculture, of flows. We need a tool that has the capacity to simu- energy, environmental, tribal, and urban interests that late management strategies under varying climatic might not otherwise be obvious when working only at conditions while recognizing allocation institutions smaller scales. Benefits include, but are not limited to, and jurisdictions such as the Colorado River Com- enhanced reliability, flexibility and resiliency of water pact. The tool can leverage existing state and federal systems. A watershed-based approach is a new para- studies of river flows (e.g., Colorado River Basin digm in decision making in the Colorado River Basin, Water Supply and Demand Study). and western policymakers can play an important role in fostering basin-wide, mutually beneficial decisions. Watershed Scale Scenario Modeling and Studies Specific recommendations include: Workshop participants recommend the use of the planning tool to inform stakeholder driven, basin- Colorado River Basin Management Tool wide studies that consider mutually beneficial water Workshop participants recommend that a planning sharing strategies (e.g., benefits from sharing infra- tool be developed that accurately depicts the complex- structure and multi-purpose projects that benefit the ity of the Colorado River Basin’s flows and uses. The environment.) Through such research, workshop participants believe we can develop better operational-management tools, including strategic storage and real-time decision support systems; supplemental supplies (e.g., reuse, groundwater storage, desalination, demand management); additional conveyance for inter connectivity and flexibility; and opportunities to improve water institutional frameworks at multiple scales in the basin.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 33 Watershed Based Advance Planning sentatives to promote and enhance Conservation Title Enhancing watershed reliability, flexibility and resil- funding to programs such as EQIP and AWEP in the iency implies advance planning. Workshop partici- next Farm Bill. These programs enhance water flex- pants recommend that Governors urge state and fed- ibility, reliability and resiliency of all western water- eral agencies to work cooperatively with stakeholders sheds including the Colorado River Basin. in the identification and implementation of mechanisms that meet water supply related obligations Recommendation: Clearing Obstacles to (including, but not limited to, water for critical habitat Implementation of Creative Water Sharing Strategies or endangered species and interstate water compacts) The group endorses a grassroots cross-sector approach in advance of water supply crises, to avoid social, in facilitating water sharing initiatives. Specific recom- environmental and economic disruption. Examples mendations include: include mechanisms such as water banking and interruptible supplies, but these mechanisms require Advocacy of Collaborative Solutions – State Water Advocates advance planning and approval. This recommenda- Workshop participants believe having a cabinet-level tion should lead to thoughtful consideration of third State Water Advocate responsible for empowering the party effects and enables development of interagency success of mutually beneficial water programs with and stakeholder relationships in advance of crises. broad support, would be a powerful step toward the success of programs such as: The US Farm Bill • Temporary transfers The US Farm Bill is an important catalyst for en- • Cross-sector partnerships couraging wise water resource use, improving water • Infrastructure (modernized storage and convey- quality and enhancing the environment. The Farm Bill ance, re-operation, reuse of existing supplies) directly influences watershed approaches with specific • More effective market incentives programs (e.g., the 2007 Farm Bill’s Chesapeake Bay • Environmental restoration and Watershed Initiative), and encourages producers to revitalization adopt best management practices (BMPs) enhancing agriculture water conservation, improving water quality and safeguarding habitat. BMPs include projects such as land leveling, drip irrigation systems and improved storage and conveyance. Workshop participants support a coordinated effort among Western Governors and Congressional Repre-

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 34 Reduce Costs for Temporary Water Sharing Arrangements Water Resource Sharing Zones For multiple reasons, water transfers that result in Workshop participants recognize that a broad sharing the permanent transfer of water from agricultural of resources, including water, can enhance opportu- land may be detrimental to all sectors (e.g., a smaller nities for all sectors. Participants recommend state economic base in rural communities). Workshop support for the creation of voluntary water resource participants believe that regulatory (transfer) costs sharing zones, similar to economic development and insufficient infrastructure are significant barriers zones, based on grassroots water partnerships between to temporary water transactions that might be used in municipal/industrial, agricultural and environmental lieu of permanent fallowing. Workshop participants uses. Within these zones, water and financial resourc- recommend that the aforementioned State Water es might be traded more freely to the mutual benefit Advocate and appropriate state agencies encourage of sectors. Elements within such a water sharing zone temporary transactions with incentives and pilot pro- might include: grams. One example of project advocacy: criteria and • Support for local economic development which thresholds should be developed that define “best man- simultaneously addresses environmental needs agement practices” for transfers, much like a check • Tax incentives to encourage water sharing list, that can be used in lieu of expensive regulatory • Programmatic approval of defined temporary approval or to streamline regulatory approval. Criteria transfers might include benefits to multiple sectors, broad sup- • Development of value-added agricultural sector port from effected interests, environmental benefits or (e.g., processing, branding, retail) minimization of adverse impacts, and minimization • Environmental restoration and preservation of impacts to economies in basin of origin, among • Preservation of recreation and open space values of others. irrigated agriculture • Infrastructure resource sharing Encourage Mutually Beneficial Infrastructure Sharing and Development The workshop participants recommend the State Water Advocate facilitate a cross-jurisdictional process for regional approaches to water infrastructure to facilitate water sharing. This approach will encourage infrastructure sharing and development that optimizes the use of existing water resources and infrastructure. Importantly, the process should be multi-sector and multijurisdictional with timely milestones. The process must not lead to takings of vested property rights including water rights but instead must be voluntary and incentive based.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 35 Recommendation: Design A Robust Stakeholder Early Broad Stakeholder Involvement Process for Multi-Benefit Water Sharing Solutions Successful collaboration requires the early identifica- Developing successful water sharing strategies re- tion and involvement of a broad range of interested quires effective collaboration between multiple parties stakeholders including decision makers; environ- with diverse interests. Past experience has shown that mental, urban and agricultural groups; local, state effective collaborative processes are critical compo- and federal agencies; and other interested parties— nents of successful water sharing efforts. States should often times before any “formal” process commences. encourage the use of collaborative approaches to Further effort is needed to select appropriate rep- develop water sharing strategies. Such collaboration resentation of affected groups and agencies. At its would reduce conflict, provide stakeholders with a inception, a collaborative effort, while recognizing vested interest in outcomes and create solutions that legal and legislative constraints, should not be un- help satisfy the diverse needs of the urban, energy, duly limited by them. agricultural, and environmental sectors. Workshop participants recommend that decision makers foster Define Expectations and Design a Process the following principles to pioneer effective and sus- to Meet Those Expectations tainable collaborative processes. Once stakeholders have been identified, a well- designed process should lead them to define reason- Develop Sustainable Partnerships able expectations for the collaborative process and Successful collaboration requires developing sus- anticipated outcomes. That is, the process should be tainable partnerships. Such partnerships are based designed to ensure that stakeholders acknowledge, on high trust levels and effective communication. understand and legitimize one another’s values as Western states’ governments have a clear under- representative of each sector’s water use. Timelines standing of the statutory, regulatory and political to reach specified goals should be established. Rules processes that often generate conflict among stake- for communication and decision-making should be holders. Western states’ governments can develop agreed upon and established. These include details and empower sustainable partnerships by providing appropriately structured, facilitated opportunities for diverse stakeholders to experience a constructive exchange of perspectives and ideas, fostering collaborative learning and problem solving.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 36 such as how the group communicates, defines con- Process Tools and Incentives sensus and plans to address impasses that are both Groups should be given incentives, support and substance and process related. Objective evaluation resources that facilitate measured and significant should be included as part of the overall process progress toward satisfying recommendations. Some design. This includes routine stakeholder feedback possible tools that collaborators can utilize to develop as well as formal systematic assessment of progress effective processes include but are not limited to: toward short, medium and long-term stakeholder (1) analysis of previous collaborative efforts, or case established goals. studies, to determine why they were successful or Interest-based negotiation is one type of collab- unsuccessful; (2) pilot projects in appropriate circum- orative process that has repeatedly satisfied diverse stances; (3) generating and sharing useful information needs and expectations involving complex natural about settings, resources, the physical system and its resource conflict. Stakeholders should draw on the constraints; (4) decision support; and (5) consistent successes of and lessons learned from prior examples and excellent facilitation. Tools that model particular and case studies. Successful collaborative processes scenarios and tradeoffs may also be employed where are those that effectively address stakeholder needs appropriate. Incentives for undertaking such processes and encourage the development of outcomes that could include funding for studies and small projects. address multiple needs and values. Success is also indicated by those processes that produce flex- Effective Public Outreach and Education ible, adaptive solutions and that continue to engage Water issues are complex, so much so that widespread interested stakeholders in ongoing assessment of the dissemination of information about the collabora- results. Should circumstances require it, successful tive process and a concerted effort to educate the processes can “begin again” and provide a marker for public about specific water issues are critical. Affected excellence in public problem solving. interests play an important role in educating their respective groups and the public about the collaborative process and water issues. Such education will vary depending upon the needs of each collaborative effort, but should occur throughout the collaborative process and should be research based and unbiased.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Recommendations 37 Quantification Study

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 38 Quantification Task: A Description of Agriculture Production and Transfers in the Colorado River Basin

Developing innovative water sharing mechanisms Changing Agricultural Water Use requires an understanding of the current status and in the Colorado River Basin underlying trends in agricultural water use, as well as Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin is diverse a recent history of water transfers between users. This and generates sizable economic activity. Water quantitative study analyses agricultural water use in from the Colorado River is used to irrigate ap- the Colorado River Basin and recent water transfers. proximately 3 million acres of cropland producing Data used in this summary is drawn from three such disparate commodities as grass hay, durum primary sources: the United States Department of wheat, alfalfa, corn and cotton, as well as high value Agriculture’s (USDA) Agriculture Census that surveys vegetables and fruit crops. The basin grows fifteen all farms and ranches at five year intervals; the USDA percent of the crops in the United States as well as Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS) that is a five thirteen percent of its livestock. year recurring sampling of irrigation practices across The USDA Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) the US; and the Water Transfer Database housed at adds richness to our understanding of Colorado River the Bren School of Environmental Science and Man- Basin agriculture. Ag Census data for the Upper and agement at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Lower Colorado River Basin includes irrigation water A single clearinghouse does not exist for transactions sourced from the Colorado River mainstem, Colorado in the Colorado River Basin states, rather a monthly River tributaries and groundwater aquifers. trade periodical The Water Strategist reports on water The Colorado River Basin is divided into upper transactions that occur in the West. To supplement and lower basins in part because climactic conditions this data, we relied on personal interviews with the US dictate differences in agricultural activity. According Geological Survey, US Department of Agriculture – to the 2007 Ag Census, the Upper Colorado Basin National Agriculture Statistics Service, US Bureau of (Water Resource Region 14) consists of 1.36 million Reclamation and others. acres of irrigated cropland with a crop mix of primar- A more complete description of this research can ily irrigated forage crops such as corn silage, grass and be found as special report #21 of the Colorado Water alfalfa hay. These crops are critical inputs for extensive Institute (http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/publications. cow/calf, feedlot and dairy industries. asp?pubs=sr).The following text provides selected themes from the larger report.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Quatification Study 39 Areas Not Included in Colorado River 09 Souris-Red-Rainy 17 Basin Statistics Lower Colorado HUC6 Level Watersheds Pacific Northwest The Imperial Irrigation District 04 (IID) is not included in the 10 07 Great Lakes 01 New England Lower Colorado Basin Water Missouri Upper 18 California 16 Resource Region, but it does 150100 14 Mississippi Great Basin Upper receive water resources from Colorado 05 the Colorado River basin. Ohio 02 Mid-Atlantic The IID irrigates more than 11 460,000 acres of high value 150602 150200 15 Arkansas-White-Red 150302 Lower 13 Rio Grande 06 Tennessee fruit and vegetable crops. Colorado 03 South In addition, lands irrigated 150301 150701 150601 08 Lower Atlantic-Gulf by transmountain diversions 12 Mississippi Texas-Gulf in the state of Colorado are 150702 150501 not included in the Upper 150400 150503 19 Basin’s agricultural statistics. 150801 150502 Alaska This includes irrigation by the 150802 20 Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) 150803 Hawaii project in northern Colorado. This diversion conveys approximately 215,000 acre- The US Geological Survey defines 20 Water feet of Colorado River water to Colorado’s Front Range and Resource Regions (WRRs) in the US, and South Platte Basin providing water to approximately 630,000 Upper Colorado the two relevant to this study are the Upper acres of crops that include sugar beets, vegetables, corn for HUC6 Level Watersheds Colorado (14) and the Lower Colorado (15). grain, alfalfa and corn silage, as well as supplying 30 cities. These water resource areas are further divided 140402 into smaller hydrologic units defined around 140401 particular drainages: 10 hydrologic units in the upper basin, and 15 hydrologic units in the lower basin. National Agriculture Statistic staff 140500 140600 categorize data from the Ag Census and the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey according to 140100 these WRRs.

140200 140300 140700

140802

140801

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Quatification Study 40 Agriculture in the Lower Colorado Basin (Water Trends in Irrigated Acreage and Farm Size Resource Region 15) benefits from a longer grow- Agriculture is evolving in the Colorado River Basin, ing season and closer proximity to large urban food and ownership is gravitating toward two farm cat- markets and distribution infrastructure. Cropping egories: small acreages whose revenues are used to is more diverse and generates higher sales value augment household income, and large, commercial per acre of irrigated cropland with a crop mix that producers that are responsible for the vast majority of consists of alfalfa hay, durum wheat, orchards and agriculture production and farm gate sales. vegetables. The 2007 Ag Census reports irrigated According to the USDA Farm and Ranch Survey, cropland in excess of 936,000 acres in the Lower the number of small farms in the Upper Colorado Ba- Colorado Basin, mostly in Arizona. sin increased from 50 to 71 percent between 2003 and 2008. This dramatic increase follows a pattern of ex-urban development in the Upper Basin Lower Basin intermountain West where large parcels Change in Total Number of Increased by 1,700 Increased by 158 are divided into smaller, single-family Farms 2003-2008 operations with irrigated forage and Change in Irrigated Acres Decreased by 6,000 Increased by 38,000* pasture as the major agricultural activ- 2003-2008 ity and substantial off-farm income. Percent of Percent of And there are fewer medium-sized Irrigated Land Irrigated Land farms, though they still crop two-thirds Small Farms 9% 3% of the irrigated acres. (less than 49 acres) In the Lower Colorado Basin, the Medium Farms 66% 42% increase in irrigated acreage was not (50 to 1,999 acres) uniformly distributed. Irrigated acres Large Farms 23% 55% (more than 2,000 acres) were lost in northwest and southwest Arizona with gains in central Arizona. Source: 2003 and 2008 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS) There are fewer farms compared to * A contradiction exists between the USDA 2008 FRIS survey and the USDA the Upper Basin, and the size distribu- Census of Agriculture Watersheds report released in 2009. The FRIS reports tion is shifting to larger farms. Small an increase of irrigated acres of 38,000 between 2003 and 2008, while the farms are maintaining their share of USDA Census of Agriculture reports a decrease of nearly 70,000 acres of total irrigated acres, while farms in the irrigated land between 2002 and 2007. The difference might be explained by data collection methods as the FRIS is a sampling while the Watersheds medium-sized classification are either report is a census of all operations. Notable is the Bureau of Reclamation’s acquiring other medium-sized farms, Lower Colorado River Accounting that suggests lands irrigated using or these farms are being subsumed by mainstem Colorado River water decreased by 20,000 acres. This accounting large farms. uses satellite imagery to calculate irrigated land. It is unclear if the predominance of small farms leads to a fragmentation of

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Quatification Study 41 water right holdings in the Colorado River Basin, but In Wyoming, the frequency of transactions has it seems likely. If true, then ownership is being spread only recently begun to increase, and the amount among more operators with less reliance on irrigated transacted has also started to expand. Wyoming water agriculture as a source of income. At the same time, a transactions are primarily leases with one-third of the significant proportion of agricultural water rights are leases from agriculture to urban use and one third being utilized by a relatively small number of large of the leases involving agricultural, urban and envi- farms. ronmental use. Further west, Utah transactions have involved a surprising amount of leases (38 percent) Colorado River Basin Water Transfers with the most activity generated in the early 2000s. The Bren Water Transfer Database collects transac- Colorado is an interesting case when it comes to tions from The Water Strategist, and the comments transfers. Very few transactions have taken place that follow are specific to transfers among Colorado within the Colorado’s portion of the Upper Colorado River Basin states that appear in the Water Transfer Basin; however, a significant number of transactions Database. involve Colorado River water diverted to the Colora- Water transfers in the West tend to follow urban do Big Thompson Project (CBT). Indeed, transactions development cycles. Peak transaction activity is as- in the CBT dwarf transactions throughout the West sociated with intensive urban development, and then accounting for slightly less than one-half of all trans- transactions are reduced when the macroeconomic actions in the Bren database. These transactions are business cycle turns and output lags. Periods of less quite small compared to the remainder of the West, frequent transactions and smaller cumulative transac- with more than 80 percent of transactions involving tion amounts correspond to economic slowdowns in 10 acre-feet or less. The largest share of transactions 1996-1998 and 2001-2003. Most recently, the number occurred in 1998 and 1999 on the heels of tremendous of transactions is increasing but the cumulative size urban development in the northern corridor of Colo- is declining. In addition, leases are becoming more rado’s Front Range. prevalent compared to outright sales. Population growth and urban development does Transactions in the Lower Colorado River Basin not occur evenly across the western landscape. Some The Lower Colorado River Basin is characterized by areas grow more rapidly than others. Likewise, water fewer and larger transactions. Water transaction ac- transfers in the Colorado River Basin tend to be un- tivity was most intense during the early to mid-2000s even through the time period 1988–2008. with fewer transactions recently. The average size of transactions during the last five years is smaller Upper Colorado River Basin Water Transfers than those experienced in the 1990s perhaps because In the Upper Basin, relatively fewer transactions have of a maturing water market and less development occurred as cities have not grown relative to the urban pressure. In the Lower Colorado Basin, 66 percent of corridors in the Lower Basin. transactions were sales rather than leases and fully

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Quatification Study 42 68 percent of transactions were urban to urban. Only geographic location where transfers are most likely to 13 percent of the transactions were from agricultural occur—albeit sourcing diversions that may exist some to urban use. distance away. Lastly, increased water resource flexibility— Factors Encouraging Transfers whether in its physical distribution or in the legal/ Subsequent analysis of transactions suggests that institutional framework in which transfers are con- several key factors tend to encourage transfers within summated—appears to increase the frequency of both the upper and lower basins. Transactions depend transactions among interests but also reduces the size importantly on a sufficient amount of surplus in the of the average transaction. More frequent transactions transaction; that is, buyers must be willing to pay a may be more desirable from a societal perspective as it sufficient sum for the transaction, sellers must be will- avoids crossing a tipping point of economic activity in ing to accept the proffered amount, and the difference the area of origin for water transfers. between these two must sufficiently outweigh transactions costs. Number of Water Transactions and Cumulative Acre-Feet Transfers appear to be tightly correlated with of Transactions in the Colorado River Basin States urban development suggesting that buyers in rapidly developing areas tend to have a stream of investment Number of transactions Total capital with which to purchase water rights and the each year AF associated infrastructure. 300 2,500,000 Transactions are encouraged if infrastructure exists Number of transactions each year Total AF of transactions within the year within an active market. Likewise transactions are 250 encouraged when a relatively simple property rights 2,000,000 structure exists and there is a less costly legal adjudication of the water right. 200 Agricultural ownership of water appears to be in- 1,500,000 creasingly fragmented across operations leaving a con- 150 centration of water rights in the hands of fewer, larger 1,000,000 holders. By no accident, these producers also generate 100 the greatest amount of sales and economic activity in the agricultural sector. Large producers are important 50 500,000 stakeholders in discussions centered on creating water sharing opportunities between diverse interests. The urban-rural fringe may also be an area in which inno- 0 0

vative gains might be made, in part because this is the 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: Bren Water Transfer Database 1988-2008

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Quatification Study 43 Next Steps

The Water Sharing Work Group advancing this initia- These dedicated water leaders from agricultural, ur- tive and the workshop participants who developed ban and environmental sectors will continue to work the Action Recommendations, will present this report together to encourage action on the part of Western to the Western States Water Council and the Western Governors and others, to advance the recommenda- Governors’ Association in 2011. tions developed in this report. They will continue to investigate ways different states in the Colorado River Basin and the West can take water sharing successes and lessons-learned from one area, and transfer them to another. A detailed comparative analysis of the numerous water sharing strategies currently in place may be encouraged for additional study. In addition, they will be working through their respective constituent groups to further the work they have begun here. Special effort will be made to identify laws and institutions which might be modified to provide more flexibility and effectively promote water sharing, while respecting and preserving individual water rights. It is also anticipated to convene additional groups of agricultural, urban and environmental interests in communities from the Colorado River Basin and throughout the West, to provide opportunities to work together, instead of against one another, to meet multiple water use needs.

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 44 Glossary/Reference

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 45 Glossary Interruptible Supply Agreements may consist of Definition of terms below summarized primarily from temporary or long-term arrangements in which ag- these two sources: ricultural water is temporarily transferred for other • Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide purposes in other locations while irrigation is tem- Water Supply Initiative, Phase 2, Section 3 Alter- porarily suspended. Exercising such an agreement is native Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to typically triggered on an as-needed basis and often Traditional Purchase and Transfer. For more detail, includes dry-year needs or drought recovery. see http://cwcb.state.co.us/public-information/ publications/Documents/ReportsStudies/Technic- Long-term Rotational Fallowing Programs are a alRoundtableReportFinalDraft.pdf (refer to Section type of interruptible agricultural transfer arrange- 3, Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods ment involving several agricultural parties and one to Traditional Purchase and Transfer) or more municipal/industrial, environmental or rec- • Meeting Colorado’s Future Water Supply Needs: reational users. Each agricultural participant would Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Po- agree not to irrigate a set amount of acreage for tential Agricultural Water Conservation Measures, certain years out of a set period of years that could September 2008, Colorado Agricultural Water Alli- relate to the number of agricultural users or the ir- ance. For more detail, see http://www.cwi.colostate. rigated area participating in the rotational fallowing edu/publications/sr/20.pdf. program.

One alternative transfer method may resemble another Deficit irrigation/Reduced Consumptive Use for based on three fundamental elements: 1) the term Transfer. Transferring the portion of a water right length of an agreement, 2) which party retains owner- that accrues to the stream system as return flow ship of the water right and 3) who or what triggers the is generally not allowed. Only that portion of the transfer. Parties often structure arrangements in ways water right used by the crop, its consumptive use, that encompass various methods. can be transferred. That portion can be made available for transfer through various methods, often called deficit irrigation, or reduced consumptive use. Various methods used include decrease in irrigated acres, choice of crops which require less water, and application of less water than is desired by the crop

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Glossary/Reference 46 for optimal yield. When such methods reduce yield, Groundwater banking and recharge can take several the revenue difference is presumed to be justified by forms but generally refers to the practice of storing revenue derived by lease of the conserved water. Split surface water in aquifers, thereby “recharging” water year leases are a type of deficit irrigation in which lost earlier from such aquifers. water is leased for just part of a year, usually free- ing late season water for fish by farmers choosing to Improvements in irrigation efficienciesto produce forego late season irrigation. conserved water for transfer is often thought to be an under-utilized source of agricultural water which Water banks generally act as a legal mechanism to could be made available for other uses such as urban transfer water from water right owners that may not demand or environmental needs. However, except need water in a given year to water users having an for places where the return flow would otherwise not annual or short-term demand versus a long-term accrue to other water rights holders (as would be the supply need. Water banks have been applied to case when return flows find their way to the ocean) stored surface water, direct delivery water, and stored irrigation efficiencies can reduce diversions but not groundwater. They may follow a deposit/withdrawal consumptive use, the transferrable part. This issue is model or a clearinghouse model. In the first form, quite complex and deserves additional research. anyone qualified may make water deposits and the bank manages water withdrawals. In the second References form, the bank helps transferors and transferees find Arkansas Basin Roundtable Water Transfer Guide- each other, using imposing standard requirements lines Committee, Considerations for Agriculture for participation. to Urban Water Transfers, September 2008 Arkan- sas Basin Roundtable Water Transfer Guide¬lines Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water Committee, Considerations for Agriculture to refers to the alternative use of either source of water Urban Water Transfers, September 2008 http:// in various configurations to achieve optimal results www.cwi.colostate.edu/watersharing and minimize negative impacts. In most places this Colby, Bonnie, Dry-Year Water Supply Reliability is very difficult to achieve because of different laws Contracts: A Tool for Water Managers applying to each type of water source. http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/facultypubs/ewsr- dyo-Final-5-12-10.pdf Colby, Bonnie, Water Auction Design for Supply

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Glossary/Reference 47 Reliability: Design, Implementation, and Evalua- Watershed or County. Report to the Legislature tion. http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/facultypubs/ State of Washington, November 2008. ewsr-AUCTION-final-5-12-10.pdf National Research Council, Water Transfers in the Colby, Bonnie, Water Banks: A Tool for Enhancing West: Efficiency, Equity, and the Environment, Water Supply Reliability National Academy Press, 1992 http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/facultypubs/ Pritchett, James, Quantification Task: A Description ewsr-Banks-final-5-12-10.pdf of Agriculture Production and Water Transfers Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance, Meeting in the Colorado River Basin. Colorado Water Colorado’s Future Water Supply Needs: Oppor- Institute, 2010. http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/publi- tunities and Challenges Associated with Poten- cations.asp?pubs=sr tial Agricultural Water Conservation Measures, Schempp, Adam, Western Water in the 21st Centu- September 2008. http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/ ry: Policies and Programs that Stretch Supplies in publications/sr/20.pdf. a Prior Appropriation World. Environmental Law Colorado Water Conservation Board, Statewide Institute, June 2009. www.eli.org Water Supply Initiative, Phase 2, Section 3 Alter- University of California, Santa Barbara, Donald Bren native Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to School of Environmental Science and Manage- Traditional Purchase and Transfer. http://cwcb. ment, Water Transfer Database. http://www.bren. state.co.us/public-information/publications/Docu- ucsb.edu/news/water_transfers.htm Note that ments/ReportsStudies/TechnicalRoundtableRe- transactions were updated through February portFinalDraft.pdf (refer to Section 3, Alternative 2009. Agricultural Water Transfer Methods to Tradition- US Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irri- al Purchase and Transfer) gation Survey (various years). US Department MacDonnell, Lawrence J., Protecting Local Econo- of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics mies: Legislative Options to Protect Rural Service. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publica- Communities in Northeast Washington from tions/2007/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/ Disproportionate Economic, Agricultural, and index.asp Environmental Impacts when Upstream Water US Census of Agriculture. Watersheds Report(2009). Rights are Purchased and Transferred for Use, or US Department of Agriculture. National Agricul- Idled and Used as Mitigation, in a Downstream ture Statistics Service. http://www.usda.gov/nass/ PUBS/TODAYRPT/waters09.pdf

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies Glossary/Reference 48 Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West

Members of the Agricultural/Urban/ Produced and Edited by: Environmental Water Sharing Work Group Karla Demmler, The PR Company, Editor Design, Production, and Audio/Video by Colorado State Nathan Bracken—Western States Water Council—UT University Communications and Creative Services Todd Doherty—Colorado Water Conservation Board—CO Watercolor Art by Shane Miles Bill Hasencamp—Metropolitan Water District—CA Photos by Stephen Smith Taylor Hawes—The Nature Conservancy—CO Jonne Hower—Western Federal Agency Support Team Includes Summary from: (WestFAST)—UT Pritchett, James, Quantification Task: A Description of Tom Iseman—Western Governors’ Association—CO Agriculture Production and Water Transfers in the Dan Keppen—Family Farm Alliance—OR Colorado River Basin. Colorado Water Institute, Special Pat O’Toole—Family Farm Alliance—WY Report Series No. 21. 2010. Colorado State University. Mark Pifher—Western Urban Water Coalition and Aurora http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=sr Water—CO Jennifer Pitt—Environmental Defense Fund—CO When referring to this publication, Ron Rayner—Tumbling T Ranches—AZ please use the following citation: Reagan Waskom—Colorado Water Institute—CO Smith, MaryLou, Pritchett, James. 2010. Agricultural/Urban/ Facilitator: MaryLou Smith—Colorado Water Institute—CO Environmental Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West. Colorado Water Institute Special Report Series No. 22. Colorado State University. http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/watersharing

For more information, contact [email protected] Colorado Water Institute www.cwi.colostate.edu December, 2010

Thanks to the Walton Family Foundation, whose funding made this initiative possible

Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing Strategies 49