Water Efficiency for Instream Flow: Making the Link in Practice
Water Efficiency for Instream Flow: Making the Link in Practice
Water Efficiency for Instream Flow: Making the Link in Practice
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong><strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong><strong>Water</strong><strong>Efficiency</strong><strong>for</strong><strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong>:October 2011A jo<strong>in</strong>t project of <strong>the</strong> Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>, American Rivers,and <strong>the</strong> Environmental Law Institute
Project PartnersAlliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>300 W Adams Street, Suite 601Chicago, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois 60606www.alliance<strong>for</strong>waterefficiency.orgAlliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>The Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> (AWE) is dedicatedto <strong>the</strong> efficient and susta<strong>in</strong>able use of water <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> United States and Canada. Based <strong>in</strong> Chicago,this nonprofit group advocates <strong>for</strong> water efficientproducts and programs and provides <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationand assistance on water conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts.AWE works with over 325 member organizations,provid<strong>in</strong>g benefit to water utilities, bus<strong>in</strong>ess and<strong>in</strong>dustry, government agencies, environmental andenergy advocates, universities, and consumers.American Rivers1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1400Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC 20005www.americanrivers.orgAmerican RiversAmerican Rivers is a conservation organizationstand<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>for</strong> healthy rivers so that communitiescan thrive. With over 65,000 members andsupporters, American Rivers works <strong>in</strong> five keyprogram areas—rivers and global warm<strong>in</strong>g, riverrestoration, river protection, clean water and watersupply—to protect our rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g natural heritage,undo <strong>the</strong> damage of <strong>the</strong> past and create a healthyfuture <strong>for</strong> our rivers and future generations.The Environmental Law Institute2000 L Street, NW, Suite 620Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC 20036www.eli.orgEnvironmental Law InstituteThe Environmental Law Institute (ELI) is a non-profit,non-partisan research and education organization.ELI’s mission is to advance environmental protectionby improv<strong>in</strong>g environmental law, policy andmanagement. S<strong>in</strong>ce 1969, ELI has been a preem<strong>in</strong>entsource of <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on federal, state, and localapproaches to solv<strong>in</strong>g environmental problems.Through its research, practical analysis, and <strong>for</strong>wardlook<strong>in</strong>gpublications, ELI <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>ms and empowersop<strong>in</strong>ion makers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g government officials,environmental and bus<strong>in</strong>ess leaders, academics,members of <strong>the</strong> environmental bar, and journalists.Project TeamMary Ann Dick<strong>in</strong>son, Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>C<strong>in</strong>dy Dyballa, Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>Michael Garrity, American RiversAdam Schempp, Environmental Law Institute1 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
AcknowledgmentsThe Walton Family Foundationprovided fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> this project.A dedicated and enthusiasticadvisory group gave <strong>in</strong>valuableadvice, <strong>in</strong>sights and support.The f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs are not endorsedby <strong>the</strong> advisory group or <strong>the</strong>irorganizations:Larry MacDonnellUniversity of Wyom<strong>in</strong>gCollege of LawSteve OlsonArizona Municipal <strong>Water</strong> UsersAssociationJay Sk<strong>in</strong>nerColorado Division of Parksand WildlifeFrances Spivy-WeberCali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Water</strong> ResourcesControl BoardBrad UdallUniversity of Colorado andNOAA Western <strong>Water</strong> AssessmentMike WadeAgricultural <strong>Water</strong> ManagementCouncilMany throughout <strong>the</strong> westernU.S. provided <strong>in</strong>sights and<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation through personal<strong>in</strong>terviews, phone conversationsand emails, shar<strong>in</strong>g draft reports,or attend<strong>in</strong>g a one-day work<strong>in</strong>gsession of experts. A specialthanks to Bill Christiansen andAlexa Loftus, Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong><strong>Efficiency</strong>, and Brandon Souza,Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> ManagementCouncil, <strong>for</strong> assistance with<strong>the</strong> sections on municipal andagricultural water use efficiency.Contents3 Summary6 Chapter 1 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: OverviewAbout this Report<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>Streamflow17 Chapter 2 Lessons from Experience:Cases from Around <strong>the</strong> West35 Chapter 3 Legal Sett<strong>in</strong>g: The Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong>47 Chapter 4 Challenges, Incentives and Promis<strong>in</strong>g Opportunities:<strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> and <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>sChallenges to Be MetIncentives and StrategiesCharacteristics of SuccessApproaches to PartnershipSett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Stage <strong>for</strong> Local ActionConclusion59 AppendicesSeparate Resource Sections on municipal, state and agriculturalwater efficiencyReport and Resource Sections onl<strong>in</strong>e:www.alliance<strong>for</strong>waterefficiency.org<strong>Water</strong><strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong><strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>:<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong><strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>October 2011<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>2
SummaryThroughout<strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>, with ever-expand<strong>in</strong>gdemands <strong>for</strong> multiple water uses and <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly uncerta<strong>in</strong>supply, any promis<strong>in</strong>g opportunity to do more with less iswelcome. The importance of healthy <strong>in</strong>stream flows, as oneof <strong>the</strong>se uses, is more press<strong>in</strong>g than ever. Improved waterefficiency can <strong>in</strong> concept help stretch water supplies and contributeto protection of aquatic environments and <strong>the</strong> resources and servicesthat <strong>the</strong>y provide.This report summarizes ef<strong>for</strong>ts to explore whe<strong>the</strong>r water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts can be l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>in</strong> practice to improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong>areas of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. In brief, we found that practicalpossibilities to do this do exist with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current context of <strong>the</strong>river bas<strong>in</strong>. Given a stream stretch with a clearly identified need <strong>for</strong>improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows and a realistic opportunity <strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>gwater efficiency, will<strong>in</strong>g partners generally can build <strong>the</strong> bridgesneeded to overcome o<strong>the</strong>r challenges.Project partners Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>, Environmental LawInstitute and American Rivers, each with a different perspective on <strong>the</strong>issue, posed several key questions which are addressed <strong>in</strong> this report:1. What is <strong>the</strong> practical experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> western U.S. <strong>in</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>ggreater water efficiencies and apply<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>in</strong>stream flows,and what lessons can we apply to <strong>the</strong> unique characteristics of <strong>the</strong>Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>?2. What is <strong>the</strong> legal sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> each bas<strong>in</strong> state <strong>for</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>gconserved water to <strong>in</strong>stream purposes?3. What are <strong>the</strong> practical challenges to us<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyprograms to improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>?4. What are <strong>the</strong> most promis<strong>in</strong>g on-<strong>the</strong>-ground opportunities—<strong>in</strong>centives and strategies, characteristics of success, and approachesto partnership—<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>?The Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> is perhaps <strong>the</strong> most challeng<strong>in</strong>g riverbas<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation: water demand now exceed<strong>in</strong>g supply, valued butfragile ecosystems, and support <strong>for</strong> nearly every type of water-relevant<strong>in</strong>terest. Build<strong>in</strong>g on this urgency led to this one-year survey projectto explore <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between water efficiency programs and improved<strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. Much is already knownabout how to achieve greater water efficiencies <strong>in</strong> urban and agriculturalwater use <strong>in</strong> a given situation. Documented <strong>in</strong>stream flow needsof priority aquatic environments are available <strong>in</strong> much of <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>.3<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Experience Across<strong>the</strong> WestAcross <strong>the</strong> West, water from both agricultural andmunicipal water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts has been usedto improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows, often <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ationwith o<strong>the</strong>r water management ef<strong>for</strong>ts. Cases fromaround <strong>the</strong> West show that while an external legal orregulatory driver, or anticipation of one, can promptaction, cooperation can multiply benefits and aidsuccess. <strong>Water</strong> efficiency is often just one part of <strong>the</strong>water management package. Fund<strong>in</strong>g often requirescreativity and multiple sources. Location and scaleof projects vary; successful projects come <strong>in</strong> all sizesfrom rural headwaters <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g just two partners tomajor stream stretches <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g many parties.The Legal Sett<strong>in</strong>gIt is possible to apply water from efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts toenhance <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> each Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>state, but opportunities and legal protections aregreater <strong>in</strong> some states than <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. A wide arrayof federal and state programs can also affect watermanagement decisions <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle stream as well asacross <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>, <strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g a difficultweb to navigate.The ChallengesA wide range and diversity of challenges arise whenpeople from <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> contemplateus<strong>in</strong>g water from water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts to helpimprove <strong>in</strong>stream flows. And <strong>the</strong> obstacles are many:legal, <strong>in</strong>stitutional and motivational, economic, andphysical.The traditional characteristics of <strong>the</strong> prior appropriationsystem of water allocation can appear to be a<strong>for</strong>midable barrier, particularly procedures associatedwith protection of o<strong>the</strong>r water right holders and <strong>the</strong>concept of “use it or lose it.” For some, <strong>the</strong> biggestconcern is potential impairment of exist<strong>in</strong>g waterrights because of <strong>the</strong> complex <strong>in</strong>teractions betweenwater uses. Polarized water <strong>in</strong>terests exist <strong>in</strong> manyareas. Fear, uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty, and a lack of trust can dom<strong>in</strong>ateconversations about improved water efficiencyand <strong>the</strong> use of any result<strong>in</strong>g water.For o<strong>the</strong>rs, <strong>the</strong> biggest question concerns who willpay <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts. A disconnect <strong>in</strong> costs, benefits,and impacts <strong>in</strong>hibits action. The tim<strong>in</strong>g and locationof <strong>in</strong>stream flow needs may not match <strong>the</strong> water thatcan be made available. Similarly, follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> physicaldrop of water may show that greater water efficiencydoes not result <strong>in</strong> additional water <strong>in</strong> a particular situation.And s<strong>in</strong>ce all <strong>in</strong>dividual ef<strong>for</strong>ts take place <strong>in</strong> abas<strong>in</strong> context, un<strong>in</strong>tended consequences may result.Incentives and StrategiesYet many of <strong>the</strong>se apparently pervasive challenges canbe cooperatively addressed on a local or watershedbasis, particularly <strong>in</strong> cooperation with o<strong>the</strong>rs. Thecontext is different <strong>in</strong> each case: <strong>the</strong> parties, <strong>the</strong> needs,<strong>the</strong> concerns, and more. As a result, <strong>the</strong> approach willvary <strong>for</strong> each situation. As different <strong>in</strong>centives motivatedifferent types of will<strong>in</strong>g partners, it is important toidentify <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>in</strong> a particular situation andconsciously f<strong>in</strong>d ways to address and even leverage<strong>the</strong>m.Attitude, trust, and will<strong>in</strong>gness are <strong>the</strong> most importantkeys to success. These can counteract polarization,attitudes, and lack of motivation. Partnerships arekey <strong>for</strong> action—one water right holder can’t do thisalone—and leadership is key to partnerships.Initial motivation often comes from outside events,such as anticipated Endangered Species Act actions.While money can really motivate, it is not <strong>the</strong> only, oroften <strong>the</strong> primary, factor. Motivations to take action<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>4
can transcend money—“green” values, water basedrecreation <strong>in</strong>terests, vista preservation, a sense oflegacy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> future.While it is more difficult <strong>in</strong> some Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong> states than <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, it is possible to l<strong>in</strong>k waterresult<strong>in</strong>g from efficiency measures to streamflowimprovement <strong>in</strong> each state. Where conserved watercan be protected from <strong>for</strong>feiture or transferred to an<strong>in</strong>stream flow use and protected from o<strong>the</strong>r waterusers, <strong>the</strong>re is greater <strong>in</strong>centive to l<strong>in</strong>k efficiency andflow. It is important to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between what<strong>the</strong> law allows and <strong>the</strong> perception of what is legallypossible. Clarify<strong>in</strong>g this can be an important strategy<strong>in</strong> foster<strong>in</strong>g this l<strong>in</strong>k.Promis<strong>in</strong>g OpportunitiesPractical possibilities <strong>for</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts and <strong>in</strong>stream flows exist with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current<strong>in</strong>stitutional context of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>.Given a stream stretch with a clearly identified need<strong>for</strong> improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows and a realistic opportunity<strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency, will<strong>in</strong>g partnersgenerally can build <strong>the</strong> bridges needed to overcomeo<strong>the</strong>r challenges. Creative fund<strong>in</strong>g, a def<strong>in</strong>ed legalpath, and short-term or pilot ef<strong>for</strong>ts are o<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>dicators of likely success.With a champion or catalyst, will<strong>in</strong>g partners, anda locally tailored approach, more efficient wateruse can be l<strong>in</strong>ked to improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong>areas of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. To <strong>for</strong>ge this l<strong>in</strong>kon <strong>the</strong> practical level, <strong>in</strong>centives and approach arebest designed separately <strong>for</strong> each specific situation.Different <strong>in</strong>centives tailored to motivate various typesof will<strong>in</strong>g partners are required: <strong>for</strong> communities,water suppliers, agricultural water districts, farmersand ranchers, nonprofit organizations, governmentpartners, and o<strong>the</strong>rs.Nonprofits and government agencies can chooseto beg<strong>in</strong> short term ef<strong>for</strong>ts that set <strong>the</strong> stage <strong>for</strong>local action, and streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between local<strong>in</strong>stream flow needs and water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts.These ef<strong>for</strong>ts can work squarely with<strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>stitutions.Opportunities can take <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of:An upstream farmer or rancher work<strong>in</strong>g witha nonprofit with an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> streamflowprotection;A community with a direct connection to a streamstretch;An agricultural district seek<strong>in</strong>g to modernize itswater management systems <strong>in</strong> a way that can alsoreduce or relocate diversions from a river;Three-way arrangements <strong>for</strong> water use, such astrades among agriculture, streamflow, and a statefish and wildlife agency;A nonprofit with strong local relationships will<strong>in</strong>gto take <strong>the</strong> lead; andMultiple partners collaborat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a stream stretchto anticipate an upcom<strong>in</strong>g environmental need,whe<strong>the</strong>r physical or regulatory.5 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
OverviewThroughout <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>, wi<strong>the</strong>ver-expand<strong>in</strong>g demands <strong>for</strong> multiple wateruses and <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly uncerta<strong>in</strong> supply, anypromis<strong>in</strong>g opportunity to do more with lesswill allow <strong>the</strong> many uses that <strong>the</strong> river supports tocont<strong>in</strong>ue. The importance of healthy <strong>in</strong>stream flows,as one of <strong>the</strong>se uses, is more press<strong>in</strong>g than ever.Improved water efficiency can <strong>in</strong> concept help stretchwater supplies and contribute to better protection ofaquatic environments and <strong>the</strong> resources and servicesthat <strong>the</strong>y provide.Much is already known about how to achieve greaterwater efficiencies <strong>in</strong> urban and agricultural wateruse <strong>in</strong> a given situation. Documented <strong>in</strong>stream flowneeds <strong>for</strong> priority aquatic environments are identified<strong>in</strong> much of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. But address<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong>se needs with water made available throughwater efficiency programs has not been adoptedas a ready, common solution, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> orelsewhere.The Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>, a watershed of 246,000square miles, poses perhaps <strong>the</strong> greatest watermanagement challenges of any river bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>nation: water demand exceed<strong>in</strong>g supply, valued butfragile ecosystems, and support <strong>for</strong> nearly every typeof water-relevant <strong>in</strong>terest. <strong>Water</strong> must serve multiplepurposes as it travels from headwaters at high mounta<strong>in</strong>elevations to <strong>the</strong> delta at <strong>the</strong> Gulf of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.Millions make use of Colorado River water resources,many of <strong>the</strong>m outside <strong>the</strong> physical boundaries of<strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>. Uses range from water <strong>for</strong> agriculture andrangelands, residential and commercial development,<strong>in</strong>dustrial manufactur<strong>in</strong>g, m<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, energy production,and Native American communities, to ecosystemservices <strong>for</strong> water-dependent recreation and tourism,endangered and o<strong>the</strong>r water-dependent species,wetland health, water quality, broader ecosystemhealth, and more.Over <strong>the</strong> past few years, a wide range of groupshas called <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se oftenconflict<strong>in</strong>g water uses. Build<strong>in</strong>g on this urgent appealled to this one-year survey project to explore <strong>the</strong>practical l<strong>in</strong>k between water efficiency programs andimproved <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>.Project partners Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>,Environmental Law Institute and American Rivers eachbr<strong>in</strong>g a different perspective and expertise to thisissue—water efficiency, western water law, and riverprotection. We posed several questions:1. What is <strong>the</strong> practical experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> westernU.S. <strong>in</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g greater water efficiencies andutiliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> result<strong>in</strong>g water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flows,and what lessons can we apply to <strong>the</strong> uniquecharacteristics of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>?2. What is <strong>the</strong> legal sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> each bas<strong>in</strong> state <strong>for</strong>apply<strong>in</strong>g conserved water to <strong>in</strong>stream purposes?3. What are <strong>the</strong> practical challenges to us<strong>in</strong>g waterefficiency programs to improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>?4. What are <strong>the</strong> most promis<strong>in</strong>g on-<strong>the</strong>-groundopportunities—<strong>in</strong>centives and strategies,characteristics of success, and approaches topartnership—<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>?This report summarizes what we found. In brief, practicalpossibilities <strong>for</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsand <strong>in</strong>stream flows exist with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current contextof <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. Given a stream stretchwith a clearly identified need <strong>for</strong> improved <strong>in</strong>streamflows and a realistic opportunity <strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g waterefficiency, will<strong>in</strong>g partners generally can build <strong>the</strong>bridges needed to overcome o<strong>the</strong>r challenges.About This ReportThis report is a practical assessment, present<strong>in</strong>goptions <strong>for</strong> localized action, not a firm set of policyrecommendations. It is <strong>in</strong>tended <strong>for</strong> a diverse audience,but may be most useful <strong>for</strong> municipal andagricultural water agencies and utilities, state andfederal water policy decision makers, and nonprofitorganizations work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> water policy and waterresources management <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>.This report first highlights current municipal andagricultural water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts, to illustrate<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>6
The Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong>7 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
<strong>the</strong> range of common practice and identify whatworks and what doesn’t, regardless of <strong>the</strong> purpose<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts. It also summarizes availability of<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about high-priority streamflow needs <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>. This report uses a very broad concept of“water use efficiency” and “water conservation” s<strong>in</strong>ce<strong>the</strong>se terms are def<strong>in</strong>ed differently across states andcontexts.Six case studies follow <strong>in</strong> Chapter 2, drawn fromover 40 candidate examples documented by <strong>the</strong>project team, to illustrate <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between waterefficiency programs and improved <strong>in</strong>stream flowsaround <strong>the</strong> West. Lessons are drawn from this rangeof experience, based on personal <strong>in</strong>terviews withthose <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> highlighted cases, and availablematerials. Chapter 3 presents an analysis of <strong>the</strong>law relevant to us<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>streampurposes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>.The challenges and <strong>in</strong>centives—legal, <strong>in</strong>stitutionaland motivational, economic and f<strong>in</strong>ancial, physicaland environmental, and water use—to l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g moreefficient water use and improved streamflows <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> are presented <strong>in</strong> Chapter 4. These weredeveloped from over 60 <strong>in</strong>terviews of knowledgeable<strong>in</strong>dividuals throughout <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> and <strong>the</strong> West,along with a one-day work<strong>in</strong>g session of selectedbas<strong>in</strong> experts. The promis<strong>in</strong>g opportunities identified,<strong>in</strong> terms of both characteristics of success andpromis<strong>in</strong>g approaches, are <strong>the</strong> result of analysis andsyn<strong>the</strong>sis of all this <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation.While <strong>the</strong> focus is on local, practical opportunitieswith will<strong>in</strong>g partners with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g bas<strong>in</strong>context, we also <strong>in</strong>clude what we heard about howstates and nonprofits can potentially set <strong>the</strong> stage<strong>for</strong> more local activities. Separate Resource Sectionscontributed by water efficiency experts lead <strong>the</strong>reader to more <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on state level waterefficiency <strong>in</strong>itiatives and examples of currentexperience with municipal and agricultural waterefficiency programs.More Efficient <strong>Water</strong> Use:Common <strong>Practice</strong>Many communities, agricultural water districts,farmers and <strong>in</strong>dustries across <strong>the</strong> U.S. have significantexperience <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> efficiency of <strong>the</strong>ir wateruse to meet a variety of water supply and environmentalchallenges. Much is already known about howto achieve <strong>the</strong>se greater water use efficiencies, <strong>the</strong>range of successful practices, and what’s best <strong>in</strong> agiven municipal or agricultural situation.Municipal <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>Many municipalities throughout <strong>the</strong> U.S. face a widerange of water supply and water resource challenges.This is particularly true <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> arid West and among<strong>the</strong> states withdraw<strong>in</strong>g water from <strong>the</strong> ColoradoRiver, where environmental concerns are prom<strong>in</strong>entand limited water resources are already spread th<strong>in</strong>.Even when a municipality has sufficient freshwaterresources to meet present needs, <strong>for</strong>ecasts may reveala future demand that grows beyond an exist<strong>in</strong>g andperhaps less reliable supply. This imbalance can bepartly or fully addressed through water demand managementstrategies such as water efficiency programs,which are often also called water conservation programseven though <strong>the</strong> terms are technically different.<strong>Water</strong> “efficiency” refers to <strong>the</strong> efficient flow rateof a fixture or device, such as a showerhead; water“conservation” refers to <strong>the</strong> behavior of <strong>the</strong> customerthat is us<strong>in</strong>g that efficient device, as <strong>in</strong> tak<strong>in</strong>g shortershowers. However, at <strong>the</strong> municipal program level, <strong>the</strong>terms are usually used <strong>in</strong>terchangeably.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>8
Municipal water efficiency programs are a successfulway to deal with a wide variety of needs, and ourcollective experience with <strong>the</strong>m spans over threedecades. Typically most water utilities first targetresidential customer end uses such as toilet flush<strong>in</strong>g,clo<strong>the</strong>s wash<strong>in</strong>g, shower<strong>in</strong>g, faucet use, lawn irrigation,and o<strong>the</strong>r outdoor water use. <strong>Water</strong> efficiencyprograms are also designed to target specificproblems <strong>in</strong> grow<strong>in</strong>g consumer demand: commercialand <strong>in</strong>dustrial water use, peak season demandand <strong>the</strong> grow<strong>in</strong>g phenomenon of outdoor wateruse, or leakage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> water delivery system itself.Municipalities and <strong>the</strong>ir water utilities usually employeducation and outreach programs, ord<strong>in</strong>ances, andconservation rate structures as part of <strong>the</strong>ir ef<strong>for</strong>ts.Motivations beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> implementation of efficiencyprograms vary, but two common reasons are tofacilitate population and economic growth withoutgreatly <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> need <strong>for</strong> new or expandedwater supplies and to avoid <strong>in</strong>frastructure expansionprojects such as build<strong>in</strong>g new treatment and storagefacilities <strong>for</strong> water supply or wastewater. In addition,environmental concerns and state regulatoryrequirements can be driv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>ces beh<strong>in</strong>d waterefficiency programs. And it’s worth not<strong>in</strong>g that just asmotivations <strong>for</strong> undertak<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsdiffer, so do <strong>the</strong> results, <strong>in</strong> terms of reduced surfaceor groundwater withdrawals, <strong>the</strong> balance of watersupply sources <strong>for</strong> a specific water utility, and <strong>the</strong>impact on streamflows.Target<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Most Cost-EffectiveStrategiesHow do water utilities target specific end uses andreduce water consumption <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir service area? Theycan undertake active water efficiency programs,conduct education and outreach activities, and adoptord<strong>in</strong>ances affect<strong>in</strong>g specific water uses. One of <strong>the</strong>most popular efficiency program strategies <strong>for</strong> waterutilities is <strong>the</strong> product rebate. Customers are givena monetary <strong>in</strong>centive <strong>for</strong> purchas<strong>in</strong>g an efficienttoilet, showerhead, clo<strong>the</strong>s washer, smart irrigationcontroller, or o<strong>the</strong>r water us<strong>in</strong>g device. Sometimeswater utilities offer a direct <strong>in</strong>stallation program; or <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> case of toilets or irrigation systems, may require alicensed plumber or contractor to conduct <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stallation.This <strong>in</strong>sures <strong>the</strong> device is <strong>in</strong>stalled properlyand will per<strong>for</strong>m as it should. Site surveys or auditsare also used to identify water sav<strong>in</strong>g opportunities.It is a great way to engage customers, and is veryeffective <strong>in</strong> commercial and <strong>in</strong>dustrial applicationsdue to <strong>the</strong> great variations <strong>in</strong> water use <strong>in</strong> thosesectors.Methodical plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> water efficiency programs isessential. This process is outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> diagram on<strong>the</strong> next page. It is important that a water utility havean accurate understand<strong>in</strong>g of its supply situation,how its customers use water, and how both of <strong>the</strong>seth<strong>in</strong>gs will change <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future. When <strong>the</strong> need <strong>for</strong>efficiency programs is documented and understood,targets and goals can be made. Follow<strong>in</strong>g this,conservation measures that are suitable <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>service area can be identified and evaluated. At <strong>the</strong>core of <strong>the</strong> evaluation process is <strong>the</strong> benefit-costanalysis, where <strong>the</strong> designed programs are evaluatedto ensure that <strong>the</strong>y will save a unit of water moreeconomically than it can be purchased or producedthrough new supply creation. One exception to thisrule is <strong>the</strong> water efficiency education and outreachprogram. While <strong>the</strong> sav<strong>in</strong>gs attributable to <strong>the</strong>sespecific programs are difficult to separate out fromo<strong>the</strong>r program ef<strong>for</strong>ts, educat<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>gwith <strong>the</strong> community is <strong>the</strong> backbone of any waterefficiency portfolio.Successful Municipal ProgramsResource Section 1 details successful municipalwater efficiency programs from 18 communities <strong>in</strong> 11states coast to coast. These examples illustrate whatis possible, and <strong>in</strong>deed practical, among municipalities.These can be used as a reference to identifyand understand <strong>the</strong> wide range and diversity of bestpractices <strong>in</strong> urban water efficiency, associated costsand sav<strong>in</strong>gs, and <strong>the</strong> types of communities that haveundertaken water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts. In<strong>for</strong>mation onprogram offer<strong>in</strong>gs and reported water sav<strong>in</strong>gs wasdrawn primarily from each utility’s own website andpr<strong>in</strong>ted materials. Programs target mostly residentialcustomers, unless o<strong>the</strong>rwise noted.In order to assist municipalities <strong>in</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>gcost-effective water conservation programs, AWEdeveloped a specialized model. The AWE <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Track<strong>in</strong>g Tool is an Excel-based modelthat can be used to evaluate <strong>the</strong> water sav<strong>in</strong>gs, costs,and benefits of municipal conservation programs.Resource Section 2 illustrates <strong>the</strong> water efficiencyprogram plann<strong>in</strong>g process <strong>for</strong> a hypo<strong>the</strong>ticalColorado River bas<strong>in</strong> community us<strong>in</strong>g this tool.9 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Source: AWWARF Project 2935: <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> Programs <strong>for</strong>Integrated <strong>Water</strong> Management, A&N Technical Services, Inc.It demonstrates that water utilities can plan to savea targeted amount of water and that this ef<strong>for</strong>t canbe cost effective, mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits outweigh<strong>the</strong> costs. This example provides estimated changes<strong>in</strong> service area water demand from a sample group ofwater efficiency programs and discussion regard<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> results.State Initiatives and PoliciesIn October 2009 AWE completed a review of exist<strong>in</strong>gstate-by-state municipal water efficiency requirementsand <strong>in</strong>itiatives <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> U.S. 1 In<strong>for</strong>mation from<strong>the</strong> survey <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> seven Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> statesis appended <strong>in</strong> Resource Section 3. In summary, allof <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> states provide technical assistance <strong>for</strong>implement<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency measures. Five of <strong>the</strong>seven states require municipal water conservationplann<strong>in</strong>g and implementation of water efficiencymeasures <strong>for</strong> water utilities. And all but one offersome <strong>for</strong>m of f<strong>in</strong>ancial assistance. In Cali<strong>for</strong>nia,both municipal water utilities and agriculturalwater districts signed agreements committ<strong>in</strong>g toimplement a suite of appropriate best managementpractices. S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> survey, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia hasadopted additional water conservation legislation,with a sweep<strong>in</strong>g target of 20 percent reduction <strong>in</strong>per person urban water use by 2020, with additionalrequirements <strong>for</strong> both urban and agricultural watersuppliers, which will lead to more efficient water use<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state. 21 A summary of f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>for</strong> all 50 states is posted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> AWEResource library: http://a4we.org/water-efficiency-US.aspx.An update is planned <strong>for</strong> spr<strong>in</strong>g 2012.2 Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7).<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>10
State <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Initiatives andRequirements <strong>for</strong> Colorado Bas<strong>in</strong> States, 2009Arizona Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Colorado NevadaNewMexico Utah Wyom<strong>in</strong>gDoes <strong>the</strong> state require preparationof drought emergency plans bywater utilities or cities on any prescribedschedule?Does <strong>the</strong> state have a mandatoryplann<strong>in</strong>g requirement <strong>for</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gwater conservation separate fromdrought emergency plans?Does <strong>the</strong> state require implementationof conservation measures aswell as preparation of plans?Does <strong>the</strong> state have <strong>the</strong> authority toapprove or reject <strong>the</strong> conservationplans?Does <strong>the</strong> state have m<strong>in</strong>imumwater efficiency standards morestr<strong>in</strong>gent than federal or nationalrequirements?Does <strong>the</strong> state regulate dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gwater supplies and require conservationas part of its permitt<strong>in</strong>gprocess or water right permit?Does <strong>the</strong> state allow fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>conservation programs under astate revolv<strong>in</strong>g fund? (dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gwater)Does <strong>the</strong> state allow fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>conservation programs under astate revolv<strong>in</strong>g fund? (wastewater)Yes Yes No Yes No No NoYes Yes Yes Yes No Yes NoYes Yes* Yes Yes No Yes NoYes Yes Yes Yes No No NoYes Yes Yes Yes No No NoYes Yes Yes No Yes No NoYes Yes Yes No Yes No YesYes Yes Yes No Yes Yes YesDoes <strong>the</strong> state offer o<strong>the</strong>r f<strong>in</strong>ancialassistance? Bonds? Appropriations?Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NoDoes <strong>the</strong> state offer direct or<strong>in</strong>direct technical assistance?Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesDoes <strong>the</strong> state provide statewideET microclimate <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation?Yes Yes Yes No No No NoSource: Alliance <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> State Survey, Oct. 2009 at http://a4we.org/water-efficiency-US.aspx* While Cali<strong>for</strong>nia does not literally require specific measures, its mandatory water use reduction goals cannot be met without action.11 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Use<strong>Efficiency</strong>There’s great experience, and <strong>in</strong>terest, <strong>in</strong> both onfarmand delivery system water efficiency. <strong>Water</strong>use efficiencies <strong>in</strong> agriculture can be achieved bothwith ref<strong>in</strong>ed on-farm distribution practices andimprovements to district-wide water managementand delivery systems. Manag<strong>in</strong>g farm water is morethan simply water<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> crop once a week. Manyfactors <strong>in</strong>fluence how much water it takes to producea crop, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g soil type, soil sal<strong>in</strong>ity management,temperature, <strong>the</strong> delivery schedule of irrigationwater and <strong>the</strong> type of irrigation system be<strong>in</strong>g used.Variables with<strong>in</strong> each of <strong>the</strong>se factors make irrigationmanagement a challeng<strong>in</strong>g and often difficult task<strong>for</strong> farmers.How Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Use <strong>Efficiency</strong>Differs from Municipal <strong>Water</strong>ConservationMany agricultural districts and farmers, like urbancommunities, have experience with ef<strong>for</strong>ts to usewater more efficiently or to reduce <strong>the</strong> amount ofwater that <strong>the</strong>y are consum<strong>in</strong>g. Farmers use waterto produce food and fiber <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> public to consume,much as factories might use steel to manufacturegoods. But as noted above, different factors <strong>in</strong>fluenceirrigation management and efficient agriculturalwater use. In agriculture, us<strong>in</strong>g more or less waterthan optimal can have serious consequences <strong>for</strong>production and <strong>the</strong> health of <strong>the</strong> crop.Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Conservation<strong>Water</strong> conservation <strong>in</strong> agriculture may take <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mof changes to <strong>the</strong> characteristics of agriculturalwater supply and demand. The Agricultural <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Clear<strong>in</strong>ghouse at Colorado StateUniversity provides a broad def<strong>in</strong>ition of agriculturalwater conservation as <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g any of <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g:Increased crop water use efficiencyImproved irrigation application efficiencyIncreased capture and utilization of precipitationDecreased crop consumptive useIncreased irrigation water diversion and deliveryefficienciesReduced water use through adoption of conservationmeasures and new technologies <strong>for</strong> watermanagement 3Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Use <strong>Efficiency</strong>There are a number of methods commonly usedto help estimate or quantify on-farm water useefficiency. One common method is to consider <strong>the</strong>amount of water it takes to produce a certa<strong>in</strong> amountof plant growth, a method often referred to as “cropper drop.”The “crop per drop” method, also known as agronomicwater use efficiency, recognizes that differentcrops serve different needs, and values <strong>the</strong> improvementof grow<strong>in</strong>g practices to ensure that farmersare match<strong>in</strong>g water use to <strong>the</strong> specific needs of <strong>the</strong>irsituation. Those needs are met through a number offactors.”Crop per drop efficiency” <strong>in</strong>cludes a factor known asdistribution uni<strong>for</strong>mity, or <strong>the</strong> uni<strong>for</strong>m distribution ofwater across an entire field. This <strong>in</strong> turn affects efficiency.A field may have different soil characteristicsfrom one end to ano<strong>the</strong>r or may not be perfectlylevel, which could reduce <strong>the</strong> potential distributionuni<strong>for</strong>mity of <strong>the</strong> irrigation water applied to <strong>the</strong> field.Low distribution uni<strong>for</strong>mity <strong>in</strong>creases water use and<strong>in</strong> some cases <strong>the</strong> energy needed to pump <strong>the</strong> waterto produce a crop.3 Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Clear<strong>in</strong>ghouse at ColoradoState University, at http://agwaterconservation.colostate.edu/.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>12
available. The legal complexities result<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong>seeffects of agricultural water efficiencies are addressed<strong>in</strong> Chapter 3.Effects of improved agricultural water use efficiencyon <strong>in</strong>stream flows depend on many variables, eachhav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> potential to substantially impact <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>stream flow through <strong>the</strong>ir effects on water systemmanagement. Potential changes to water use efficiencypractices <strong>in</strong> agriculture on <strong>in</strong>stream flows mayhave un<strong>in</strong>tended consequences, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g changes <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g and volume of water <strong>in</strong>itially diverted <strong>for</strong>agriculture, <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased direct diversions<strong>for</strong> downstream use, alterations to <strong>the</strong> qualityand quantity of return flows both positive and negative,as well as potential repercussions <strong>for</strong> conjunctivegroundwater management.Practical Experience with On-Farm andDistrict <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>Experience with both on-farm and district waterefficiency <strong>for</strong> different types of crops and differentwestern U.S. climates and soil types is extensive.Agricultural water managers can turn to severalgovernment and nonprofit sources of <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation,as well as private sector experts, such as those cited<strong>in</strong> this section. Several western states have identifiedagricultural practices <strong>for</strong> water management andefficient use. Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, <strong>for</strong> example, has adopteda list of “efficient water management practices” <strong>for</strong>water districts, while <strong>the</strong> Texas State Soil and <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Board has a guidebook on best managementpractices <strong>for</strong> both on-farm water use and <strong>for</strong>water delivery systems. 5Both <strong>the</strong> Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) of <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of Agriculture and <strong>the</strong>U.S. Bureau of Reclamation def<strong>in</strong>e and support agriculturalwater efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts. The NRCS Agricultural<strong>Water</strong> Enhancement Program (AWEP), part of <strong>the</strong>Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),provides f<strong>in</strong>ancial and technical assistance to farmersto plan and implement conservation practices onagricultural land <strong>in</strong> project areas that more efficientlyuse surface and ground water and improve waterquality. The Agricultural Management Assistance(AMA) provides cost share assistance to agriculturalproducers to voluntarily <strong>in</strong>corporate new conservation5 Texas State Soil and <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Board, 2004 atwww.tsswcb.state.tx.us/files/contentimages/water_conservation_bmp.pdf.Source: Meet<strong>in</strong>g Colorado’s Future <strong>Water</strong> Supply Needs: Opportunities and Challenges Associated withPotential Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Measures, Sept. 2008, Colorado Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Alliance<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>14
activities <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>ir farm<strong>in</strong>g operations, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gwater management or irrigation structures. 6 The U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) supports its west-wideand Cali<strong>for</strong>nia-specific lists of best managementpractices with two sources of technical assistanceand fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> implementation—<strong>the</strong> <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Field Services Program and <strong>the</strong><strong>Water</strong>SHARE ef<strong>for</strong>t. 7Non-profit, public benefit organizations also exist tohelp water suppliers and farmers improve water useefficiency. For example, <strong>in</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>the</strong> Agricultural<strong>Water</strong> Management Council provides a voluntaryapproach to efficient water management practices<strong>for</strong> agricultural water suppliers and a system <strong>for</strong>determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g which practices are most likely toprovide local benefit, as well as provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationand resources to farmers work<strong>in</strong>g to improvewater use efficiency. 8SummaryEf<strong>for</strong>ts by agricultural water suppliers and farmersto improve water use efficiency <strong>in</strong> agriculture canbe successful but require consideration of both <strong>the</strong>possible benefits and impacts <strong>in</strong> a particular location.While <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g agricultural wateruse efficiency to effect change on <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong>general is undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed, it has worked to enhancestreamflows <strong>in</strong> specific situations (see <strong>for</strong> examplecase studies <strong>in</strong> Chapter 2). Improv<strong>in</strong>g agriculturalwater use efficiency <strong>in</strong>telligently can provideopportunities to maximize water use potential whilemanag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> numerous variables that exist.Wise agricultural water use efficiency and conservationchoices will also ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> flexibility <strong>in</strong> farmers’crop selection. Farmers <strong>in</strong> irrigated regions of <strong>the</strong>western U.S. often must make annual changes to<strong>the</strong>ir cropp<strong>in</strong>g choices to respond to water availability,market demands, and o<strong>the</strong>r factors. Threeexamples of on-farm and water district efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts drawn from Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, contributed by <strong>the</strong>Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Management Council, are available<strong>in</strong> Resource Section 4. These illustrate not only <strong>the</strong>range of possibilities <strong>in</strong> creatively manag<strong>in</strong>g wateruse but also provide some <strong>in</strong>dication of <strong>the</strong> range ofvariables that can be accommodated through <strong>in</strong>telligentwater use efficiency programs.<strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: How Much IsNeeded and WhenThis report does not attempt an evaluation of <strong>the</strong>highly complex science of streamflow assessment.But some po<strong>in</strong>ts are clear: not just <strong>the</strong> volume, but<strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g, duration, variation, and location of flowsare important factors <strong>in</strong> a particular stream reach.Almost every state has its own methodologies <strong>for</strong>develop<strong>in</strong>g flow recommendations <strong>for</strong> localizedstream segments. The legal context of <strong>in</strong>stream flowrights and protections is somewhat unique <strong>in</strong> eachstate as well (see Chapter 3 beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g on page35). Several Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> states have begunstatewide or regional ef<strong>for</strong>ts to identify streamflowneeds, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g develop<strong>in</strong>g rank<strong>in</strong>g systems to assist<strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> most critical stream stretches. Forpursu<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tersection of water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsand <strong>in</strong>stream flow needs, <strong>the</strong>se reaches and <strong>the</strong>seef<strong>for</strong>ts may be <strong>the</strong> most relevant.The Arizona Department of <strong>Water</strong> Resources f<strong>in</strong>alvolume of its state water atlas, <strong>for</strong> example, presentsa water susta<strong>in</strong>ability evaluation of Arizona water,highlight<strong>in</strong>g (or rank<strong>in</strong>g) <strong>the</strong> most important environmentalwater resources needs by geographicarea (groundwater bas<strong>in</strong>) <strong>in</strong> Arizona. 9 A separateUniversity of Arizona Environmental <strong>Water</strong> NeedsAssessment describes <strong>the</strong> geographic location and6 NRCS programs are accessed at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/.7 Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Plann<strong>in</strong>g Guidebook, 2000, USBR athttp://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/waterconsv/pdfs/Guidebook2000.pdf.USBR’s Mid-Pacific Region agricultural water conservationcriteria at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/watershare/documents.html.DOI’s <strong>Water</strong>SMART website features projects funded by <strong>the</strong>program at http://www.doi.gov/watersmart/html/<strong>in</strong>dex.php.8 Agricultural <strong>Water</strong> Management Council atwww.agwatercouncil.org/.A statewide Memorandum of Understand<strong>in</strong>g on agriculturalwater efficiency provides guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> water managementplans and implementation of cost-effective efficient watermanagement practices. A 2009 state law sets additionalgoals <strong>for</strong> all water users, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g agriculture.9 Arizona Department of <strong>Water</strong> Resources, Arizona State<strong>Water</strong> Atlas at http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlann<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>Water</strong>Atlas/default.htm.15 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
focus of nearly 100 studies of environmental waterneeds <strong>in</strong> Arizona, to identify environmental waterneeds <strong>for</strong> some rivers and <strong>the</strong> connection betweenwater availability and ecological health. 10State fish and game agencies have also reviewed<strong>in</strong>stream flow needs. The Wyom<strong>in</strong>g Game andFish Department five-year plan is one example. 11Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s Fish and Game Department’s <strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong> Program develops scientific <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on<strong>the</strong> relationships between flow and available streamhabitat, to determ<strong>in</strong>e what flows are needed toma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> healthy conditions <strong>for</strong> fish and wildlife. 12Two related ef<strong>for</strong>ts are underway <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state ofColorado. Phase two of <strong>the</strong> Statewide <strong>Water</strong> SupplyInitiative identified environmental needs (2007). Andn<strong>in</strong>e regional roundtables (groups of stakeholders)<strong>for</strong> each sub-bas<strong>in</strong> provide <strong>in</strong>put to <strong>the</strong> State’snonconsumptive water needs assessments (bo<strong>the</strong>nvironmental and recreational water needs) <strong>for</strong>each sub-bas<strong>in</strong>. 13 Similarly, some of New Mexico’s16 locally developed regional water plans addressenvironmental water needs. 14Cali<strong>for</strong>nia is embark<strong>in</strong>g on a more complexwatershed-based approach to mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>in</strong>one watershed (outside <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>)between quantifiable <strong>in</strong>stream flow objectives,water quality standards and criteria, and water rightsadm<strong>in</strong>istration. The State <strong>Water</strong> Resources ControlBoard, <strong>in</strong> consultation with Fish and Game, developeda list <strong>in</strong> late 2010 of <strong>in</strong>stream flow studies <strong>for</strong>138 rivers statewide, as required by state legislation.In August 2010 <strong>the</strong> Board adopted a flow study <strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong> Sacramento/San Joaqu<strong>in</strong> Delta ecosystem. TheBoard is now do<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> work to set flow objectives<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> San Joaqu<strong>in</strong>, focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> lower river; adraft is anticipated by early 2012 with flow objectives<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Delta and Sacramento River, <strong>for</strong>mal adoption,and a water rights proceed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire ecosystemto follow. <strong>Water</strong> users <strong>in</strong> each tributary river willneed to f<strong>in</strong>d ways to get to that target objective,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency measures. 15A wealth of o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation is available from publicsources, <strong>for</strong> those <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> a specific location.Ma<strong>in</strong> stem Colorado River flows are driven by federalreservoir management and by endangered speciesneeds. Federal habitat conservation plans <strong>for</strong> endangeredor threatened aquatic species can identifycritical stretches. Biological op<strong>in</strong>ions and environ-mental impact statements <strong>for</strong> federally sponsoredprojects can provide reach-specific <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation. TheUpper Colorado River endangered fish recoveryprogram has compiled available technical reports <strong>for</strong>flow recommendations by river (Gunnison, etc). Andseveral states have active <strong>in</strong>stream flow programs andpolicies that secure <strong>the</strong>se flows once needs aredef<strong>in</strong>ed. One is Colorado’s <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> Programthat obta<strong>in</strong>s and holds water rights (mostly junior)<strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> specific stream stretches.10 Arizona Environmental <strong>Water</strong> Needs Assessment Report,Joanna Nadeau and Sharon B. Megdal, University of Arizona,2011 at http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/pdfs/AZEWNA_Assessment-Mar8-flat.pdf.11 <strong>Water</strong> Management Unit Five-Year Plan 2006–2010, Wyom<strong>in</strong>gGame and Fish Department, April 2006 at http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/Fish/5yearplan2006.pdf.12 Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Fish and Game ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s a websitewith <strong>in</strong>stream flow <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/water/<strong>in</strong>stream_flow_docs.html and has made recommendationson 22 priority streams at http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2009/0310f<strong>in</strong>al/v4c10a04_cwp2009.pdf.13 These Colorado ef<strong>for</strong>ts, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g specific reports, aredescribed at http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/nonconsumptive-needs/Pages/ma<strong>in</strong>.aspx.Statewide <strong>in</strong>itiative reports are found at http://cwcb.state.co.us/public-<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation/publications/Pages/StudiesReports.aspx.14 New Mexico <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation is at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/isc_regional_plans.html.15 Personal communication with Frances Spivy-Weber, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia<strong>Water</strong> Resources Control Board, August 2011. The State <strong>Water</strong>Board has regulatory authority over both water rights andwater quality; its n<strong>in</strong>e regional boards over water quality only,which <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>in</strong>stream flow levels.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>16
Lessons from Experience:Cases from Around <strong>the</strong> WestAwide rang<strong>in</strong>g search <strong>for</strong> practical experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> western U.S. l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyand <strong>in</strong>stream flow protection yielded over 40 candidate case studies, from <strong>in</strong>dividualon-farm water efficiency measures to major city-wide conservation programs and largescaleagricultural district efficiencies. We gave particular attention to several cases thatwe feel shed <strong>the</strong> most light on this l<strong>in</strong>k and best illustrate <strong>the</strong> range of possibilities.Along with our featured cases we describe o<strong>the</strong>r, similar ef<strong>for</strong>ts that are also <strong>in</strong>structive, among<strong>the</strong>m canal modernization projects <strong>in</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, Montana and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia; several projects ofWash<strong>in</strong>gton’s Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River; on-farm projects <strong>in</strong> Montana, Utah, and Idaho; andmulti-party municipal ef<strong>for</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.Cedar River, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton (metropolitan Seattle)Impact of long-term municipal conservationDeschutes River Bas<strong>in</strong>, Oregon(irrigation district and municipal ef<strong>for</strong>ts)Role of <strong>the</strong> non-profitWACedar RiverManatash CreekORMTNorth Fork Blackfoot RiverGrand Valley, Colorado River, Colorado(Government High L<strong>in</strong>e Canal)Moderniz<strong>in</strong>g irrigation diversionsDeschutes River Bas<strong>in</strong>IDWYManastash Creek, Yakima River Bas<strong>in</strong>,Wash<strong>in</strong>gton (Creek Restoration Project)Impact of agricultural efficienciesRussian RiverNVUTCONorth Fork Blackfoot River, Montana(Weaver Farm)Individual on-farm ef<strong>for</strong>tsCAGrand ValleyRussian River, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia(Sonoma County <strong>Water</strong> Agency)More natural flows17 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
While <strong>the</strong>re are many successful water efficiency programswest-wide, if a program had no l<strong>in</strong>k to <strong>in</strong>streamflow, however <strong>in</strong>direct, we did not <strong>in</strong>clude it. Likewise,we opted to focus on cases with demonstrableresults ra<strong>the</strong>r than models and policies that are as yetuntested. Appendix 1 describes our criteria and lists<strong>the</strong> cases we considered. Separate resource sectionsgive examples of successful water efficiency programsundertaken <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r purposes.What This ExperienceTells UsSeveral lessons emerge from this wealth of experienceabout what works and what doesn’t <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>application of water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts to improved<strong>in</strong>stream flows. The approach or model adapts to <strong>the</strong>situation, <strong>the</strong> participants and <strong>the</strong>ir water managementgoals. While an external legal or regulatorydriver, or anticipation of one, can prompt action,cooperation can multiply benefits and aid success.<strong>Water</strong> efficiency is often just one part of <strong>the</strong> watermanagement package. Fund<strong>in</strong>g often requirescreativity and multiple sources. Location and scaleof projects vary; successful projects come <strong>in</strong> all sizesfrom rural headwaters <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g just two partners tosignificant river stretches <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g many partners.Urban and agricultural water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts arepractical and can result <strong>in</strong> water available <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rpurposes, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stream flows.External Drivers OftenPrompt ActionFederal environmental requirements canserve as a driver of action.The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has <strong>for</strong>ced orprovided <strong>in</strong>centives <strong>for</strong> many of <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flowprojects that rely <strong>in</strong> part or entirely on water from<strong>in</strong>creased efficiencies. This <strong>in</strong>fluence can come fromlitigation or its threat, or from requirements ofhabitat conservation plans (HCPs) or biological op<strong>in</strong>ions.In some cases, water management actions havebeen undertaken <strong>in</strong> anticipation of such pressures.O<strong>the</strong>r federal laws that could serve as drivers <strong>in</strong>clude<strong>the</strong> Clean <strong>Water</strong> Act, Federal Power Act, FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicens<strong>in</strong>gprocedures, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)project authorities, though such drivers are not seen<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cases reviewed.Cases: Many, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Grand Valley, Manastash,RussianState water rights decisions can prompt<strong>the</strong> development of a project.<strong>Water</strong> right adjudications have prompted agreementsthat <strong>in</strong>clude water conservation measures and<strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits. Some cases <strong>in</strong>volve a legalchange <strong>in</strong> water rights; o<strong>the</strong>rs occur despite suchopportunities <strong>in</strong> law not be<strong>in</strong>g available.Cases: SunnysideKey Lessons and Cases That Illustrate ThemCase External driver Fund<strong>in</strong>g Cooperation Package ScaleCedarmediumDeschutesmediumGrand Valley largeManastashsmallNorth BlackfootsmallRussianmediummajor factorfactor<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>18
Fund<strong>in</strong>g Is Critical to SuccessFund<strong>in</strong>g often requires creativity andmultiple sources.Fund<strong>in</strong>g needs <strong>for</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g efficiency measuresrange widely. But at least half <strong>the</strong> cases <strong>in</strong>volveseveral fund<strong>in</strong>g sources and some f<strong>in</strong>ancial creativity.<strong>Water</strong> efficiency projects often <strong>in</strong>volve upfront <strong>in</strong>vestments.When <strong>the</strong>se <strong>in</strong>vestments are not <strong>in</strong>dividuallyf<strong>in</strong>ancially rational from <strong>the</strong> water user view, waterright users often are unwill<strong>in</strong>g if not unable to absorb<strong>the</strong> entire cost. This may be especially true of agriculturaldistrict costs <strong>for</strong> technological improvements.Cases: Deschutes, Grand Valley, Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong>Project and many smaller projects such as<strong>the</strong> North Fork BlackfootFund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> fisheries improvements can betapped <strong>for</strong> conservation.The ESA not only creates legal pressure to improveflows, but it often br<strong>in</strong>gs along a fund<strong>in</strong>g source.Cases we reviewed have tapped fund<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong>Upper Colorado Recovery Program, Bonneville PowerAdm<strong>in</strong>istration (BPA) Fish and Wildlife Program/Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Transactions Program,ESA Section 6 (habitat conservation) money,Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Department of Ecology’s ColumbiaRiver <strong>Water</strong> Management Program, and <strong>the</strong> PacificCoastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Mitigation funds<strong>in</strong>dependent of <strong>the</strong> ESA can also be used to boostflows—some BPA money goes to mitigate <strong>for</strong> speciesaffected by <strong>the</strong> federal Columbia River dams, not justfish and wildlife listed under <strong>the</strong> ESA, though <strong>the</strong>yare generally prioritized. Even fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> relativelysmall scale projects undertaken by non-profits cancome from fisheries mitigation funds—Montana’sClark Fork Coalition, Oregon’s Freshwater Trust, <strong>the</strong>Wash<strong>in</strong>gton <strong>Water</strong> Trust and Trout Unlimited’s (TU)<strong>Water</strong> Projects <strong>in</strong> western states all depend <strong>in</strong> parton BPA money to work with farmers on farm waterefficiencies. Though our cases did not illustratethis, potential exists <strong>in</strong> tribal settlements and FERCrelicens<strong>in</strong>g that funded <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvements<strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r sett<strong>in</strong>gs, though not necessarily from waterefficiency measures.Cases: Deschutes, Manastash, North Fork BlackfootFederal and state fund<strong>in</strong>g sources <strong>for</strong>water efficiency can assist streamflow.USBR <strong>Water</strong>SMART programs, <strong>for</strong> example, havefunded agricultural water delivery system improvements,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g more efficient district watermanagement. In some cases this has resulted <strong>in</strong>streamflow improvements, though flows are not <strong>the</strong>major focus of <strong>the</strong>se projects. O<strong>the</strong>r federal and stateprograms targeted at water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts couldalso be utilized <strong>in</strong> this manner.Cases: Sunnyside, Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os, Yellowstone(all <strong>Water</strong>SMART projects)Funds can be raised with <strong>the</strong> promise offisheries or environmental improvements.The rais<strong>in</strong>g of capital to support projects thatimprove <strong>in</strong>stream flows, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g those that do itthrough water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts, can have <strong>the</strong> addedbenefit of reduc<strong>in</strong>g water demand if donations are atleast <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory l<strong>in</strong>ked to actual domestic water use.In this way, environmental or fishery improvementscan promote water efficiency. Even where <strong>the</strong>re arenot ESA-listed species, it can help nonprofit groupsto raise money when <strong>the</strong>ir projects benefit rare butnon-listed fish like Bonneville cutthroat.Cases: Bonneville <strong>Water</strong> Restoration Certificates,Conserve to EnhanceCooperation Can MultiplyBenefits and Aid SuccessMultiple parties can work effectivelytoge<strong>the</strong>r.Given <strong>the</strong> complexity of some of <strong>the</strong>se projects, <strong>the</strong>various benefits that result, and <strong>the</strong> fund<strong>in</strong>g needed,<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>volvement of multiple parties <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> developmentand execution of projects can be vital andhas proved successful <strong>in</strong> a number of cases. Whilelaw and fund<strong>in</strong>g play <strong>in</strong>tegral roles <strong>in</strong> allow<strong>in</strong>g and<strong>in</strong>centiviz<strong>in</strong>g projects, little is possible without waterright holders amenable to <strong>the</strong> changes. The lessencourag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> circumstances of law and fund<strong>in</strong>g,<strong>the</strong> more critical it is to be work<strong>in</strong>g with an <strong>in</strong>terestedwater right holder.Cases: North Fork Blackfoot and similar cases,Manastash, Grand Valley, Central Oregon19 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Multiple benefits of a project, to multipleparties, can move it along.Most cases <strong>in</strong>volve cooperation, coord<strong>in</strong>ation, and/ornegotiation amongst different parties who mustfirst identify and <strong>the</strong>n act on common <strong>in</strong>terests.Streamflow improvement may only be one of those<strong>in</strong>terests. Small hydroelectric projects, water <strong>for</strong>development, stream restoration, and o<strong>the</strong>r resultsmay also be a part of <strong>the</strong> plan. The multiple benefitscan br<strong>in</strong>g additional partners and money and mayactually be <strong>the</strong> primary reason <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> project. While<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r benefits have <strong>the</strong> potential to adverselyaffect <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow results, <strong>the</strong>se cases show it’spossible to do both.Cases: Sunnyside (more reliable water supply),Manastash (habitat restoration),Rock Creek (habitat restoration),Deschutes (hydropower)Recreation and fish<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests canmotivate resource protection.Beyond ecological function or any sense of <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sicvalue of or obligation to nature, human <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>for</strong> recreation, fish<strong>in</strong>g, or aes<strong>the</strong>ticscan motivate action. More abstract concerns overfuture municipal water supplies and how humanneeds will be met under such conditions can alsomotivate water efficiency projects that have <strong>the</strong>effect of <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g flows.Cases: Little Bear Creek, North Fork Blackfoot andsimilar cases, Manastash, Cedar RiverTechnical support and participation ofnon-water user organizations and statescan help.State and/or federal participation, or at least agreement,beyond fund<strong>in</strong>g was part of all but <strong>the</strong> smalleston-farm projects. Resource agencies can play aspecial role by provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation and science.In most cases, a local nonprofit or some o<strong>the</strong>r entityhad a role to play as a broker <strong>for</strong> cooperation andsource of funds. And especially with smaller projects,step by step external assistance with <strong>the</strong> legal andtechnological aspects of develop<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> projectimproves its feasibility and likelihood of success.Cases: Little Bear Creek, North Fork Blackfoot, ando<strong>the</strong>r similar projectsSuccess breeds success.Neighbor<strong>in</strong>g farms and communities are more likelyto borrow ideas and believe <strong>the</strong>y can achieve resultsif success is achieved nearby.Cases: Little Bear<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> Is Often JustOne Part of <strong>the</strong> PackageMultiple efficiency and watermanagement measures can net <strong>in</strong>streamflow support.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>for</strong> flows need not arise from a s<strong>in</strong>gle action<strong>for</strong> a given project. A comb<strong>in</strong>ation of water efficiencyand water management measures, meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>objectives of various participants, can result <strong>in</strong> moreflow and reduce <strong>the</strong> burden on a s<strong>in</strong>gle water user orone aspect of water use.Cases: Manastash, Cedar, North Fork Blackfoot,Little Bear, N<strong>in</strong>e Mile, Badger Creeks,Mono Lake, and o<strong>the</strong>rsAgricultural district water managementimprovements can help streamflow.These agricultural district cases <strong>in</strong>volve measures thatmeet a broad def<strong>in</strong>ition of agricultural efficiency, andsome do not <strong>in</strong>volve any on-farm efficiency practices.Many <strong>in</strong>volve a package of water managementactions, of which water efficiency (municipal or agricultural)is just one part. <strong>Water</strong> leas<strong>in</strong>g and transfersare common project partners. Agricultural districtefficiencies achieved through modernization of conveyance<strong>in</strong>frastructure and undertaken <strong>for</strong> reasonso<strong>the</strong>r than streamflow, while perhaps not reduc<strong>in</strong>gconsumptive use, still allow water to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> astream stretch and rewater it <strong>for</strong> biological benefit.Cases: Grand Valley, Sunnyside, Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os,Yellowstone, Manastash<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>20
Municipal efficiency measures <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rpurposes can help streamflow.Municipal water conservation is often more aboutreduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> need to develop new supplies ra<strong>the</strong>rthan improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows. But <strong>in</strong> some <strong>in</strong>stancesconservation has not only stretched <strong>the</strong> viability ofexist<strong>in</strong>g water supplies well <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> future and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>face of population growth but also allowed <strong>for</strong> moreflexible operation of water storage dams <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>benefit of <strong>in</strong>stream flows and native fish like salmonand steelhead.Cases: Cedar, RussianScale and Location AreSite-SpecificAppreciable <strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits arepossible with small amounts of water.In smaller rivers, tributaries and headwaters, a smallamount of water can make a mean<strong>in</strong>gful difference<strong>for</strong> flows and <strong>the</strong> viability of local native fish populations<strong>in</strong> a particular stream stretch or watershed. Thisis true even where <strong>the</strong>re are challenges with flowsfur<strong>the</strong>r downstream, as will often be <strong>the</strong> case <strong>in</strong> anoverappropriated river bas<strong>in</strong> such as <strong>the</strong> Colorado.Cases: North Fork Blackfoot, Manastash, Little BearLarger rivers benefit from multipleapproaches.On bigger rivers, achiev<strong>in</strong>g more than <strong>in</strong>crementalprogress toward <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvementsoften requires actions on not just a farm hereand <strong>the</strong>re, but <strong>for</strong> entire systems of agriculturalwater distribution and use, such as modernizationof irrigation conveyance systems to operate withless water diverted, or major municipal waterconservation programs.Cases: Grand Valley, Sunnyside, YellowstoneLaw can <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> location of <strong>the</strong>project.When conserved water can be changed to ano<strong>the</strong>rpurpose of use, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stream flows, <strong>the</strong>re isgreater security <strong>in</strong> protection of <strong>the</strong> conserved waterfrom o<strong>the</strong>r potential users. When such protectionsare not available under state law, geography mattersmore: areas with more distance between headgatesreduces <strong>the</strong> chance of immediate diversion andhence better ensures flow restoration <strong>for</strong> a largerstretch of stream. There<strong>for</strong>e, more isolated areasare often targeted.Cases: Little Bear, Grand Valley, BadgerDe facto <strong>in</strong>stream flows matter <strong>for</strong> aparticular stream stretch.Protect<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>in</strong>stream is a challenge.Sometimes “de facto” <strong>in</strong>stream flow protection—protection through improved streamflows <strong>in</strong> practiceif not as an altered water right—works <strong>for</strong> a considerabledistance downstream. This suggests a focuson gett<strong>in</strong>g smaller volumes <strong>in</strong>to specific, targetedstream stretches. Tributaries and headwaters hold<strong>the</strong> most promise.Cases: Grand Valley to UT border; Cedar, a shortriver where Seattle is <strong>the</strong> only major diverter;Manastash from farms to Yakima RiverDef<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g streamflow needs <strong>for</strong> a particularstretch is an essential step to action.ESA protections <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual species have served <strong>in</strong>many of <strong>the</strong>se cases as a way to def<strong>in</strong>e where, when,and how much streamflow improvement is needed.Often, streamflow needs of <strong>in</strong>dividual endangered orthreatened aquatic species serve as a surrogate <strong>for</strong> amore complex development of ecological streamflowneeds. More broadly, regional or statewide assessmentsof streamflow needs can identify potentialareas to target <strong>for</strong> improved streamflows.Cases: Deschutes, Manastash, Russian21 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Lessons from West-Wide ExperienceTheme Lesson Cases that illustrate thisExternal Drivers ESA Grand Valley, Manastash, RussianState water rightsSunnysideFund<strong>in</strong>g Creativity Deschutes, Grand Valley, Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong>,North Fork BlackfootFisheries<strong>Water</strong> efficiencyFundrais<strong>in</strong>gDeschutes, Manastash, North Fork BlackfootSunnyside, Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os, YellowstoneBonneville Certificates, Conserve to EnhanceCooperation Multiple partners North Fork Blackfoot, Manastash, Grand Valley, DeschutesMultiple benefitsRecreation <strong>in</strong>terestsOutside groupsNearby successSunnyside, Manastash, Rock Creek, DeschutesLittle Bear, North Fork Blackfoot, Manastash, CedarLittle Bear, North Fork BlackfootLittle Bear<strong>Efficiency</strong> Package Multiple measures Manastash, Cedar, North Fork Blackfoot, Little Bear,N<strong>in</strong>e Mile, Badger, Mono LakeAgricultural managementMunicipal efficiencyGrand Valley, Sunnyside, Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os, Yellowstone,ManastashCedar, RussianScale and Location Small volume North Fork Blackfoot, Manastash, Little BearLarger riversLaw’s <strong>in</strong>fluenceDefacto flowsDef<strong>in</strong>ed needsGrand Valley, Sunnyside, YellowstoneLittle Bear, Grand Valley, BadgerGrand Valley, Cedar, ManastashDeschutes, Manastash, Russian<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>22
Cedar River, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton:Long-Term Municipal ConservationThe Cedar River dra<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> Cascade Mounta<strong>in</strong>s east ofSeattle be<strong>for</strong>e flow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to Lake Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, which<strong>in</strong> turn flows <strong>in</strong>to Puget Sound through <strong>the</strong> HiramM. Chittenden Locks. The Cedar is Seattle’s largestsource of water, provid<strong>in</strong>g about 70 percent of <strong>the</strong>dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water delivered by Seattle’s regional watersupply system, a system that’s <strong>the</strong> primary supply<strong>for</strong> some 1.3 million people <strong>in</strong> and around Seattle. 1In <strong>the</strong> 1990s Seattle had already demonstrated successfulmunicipal water conservation programs. ButSeattle’s water supply rema<strong>in</strong>ed vulnerable to futureconstra<strong>in</strong>ts after Puget Sound ch<strong>in</strong>ook salmon weredeclared federally threatened <strong>in</strong> 1999. 2 This was oneof many drivers that motivated Seattle to significantlyramp up its conservation programs <strong>in</strong> year 2000.Between 1966 and 1995, Seattle Public Utilities’diversion from <strong>the</strong> Cedar River averaged 23 percentof <strong>the</strong> river’s total flow. Although <strong>the</strong> upper twothirdsof <strong>the</strong> watershed is municipally-owned andvirtually prist<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> Cedar’s native anadromousfisheries, which <strong>in</strong>clude ESA-listed ch<strong>in</strong>ook salmonand steelhead trout, have struggled. The relativesignificance of various factors <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>the</strong>fishery cont<strong>in</strong>ue to be debated—changes <strong>in</strong> waterquality, impacts of urban development, a <strong>for</strong>merlyimpassable diversion dam, disease and geneticissues, ocean conditions, overfish<strong>in</strong>g, predation—but one factor is changes <strong>in</strong> river flow.The Cedar River was re-plumbed by <strong>the</strong> U.S. ArmyCorps of Eng<strong>in</strong>eers to provide <strong>in</strong>creased water <strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong> operation of navigational locks connect<strong>in</strong>g LakeWash<strong>in</strong>gton to Puget Sound. Until 1916 <strong>the</strong> CedarRiver flowed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> Black and Duwamish Rivers and<strong>the</strong>n <strong>in</strong>to Puget Sound, bypass<strong>in</strong>g Lake Wash<strong>in</strong>gtonentirely.The Cedar River is a mid-elevation watershed that is“transitional” between be<strong>in</strong>g ra<strong>in</strong> and snow dom<strong>in</strong>ated.It receives abundant precipitation <strong>in</strong> w<strong>in</strong>terand little precipitation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> summer. Transitionalwatersheds have been predicted to become morera<strong>in</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>in</strong> a number of climate change scenarios.These scenarios po<strong>in</strong>t to reduced natural waterstorage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> mounta<strong>in</strong> snowpack and will likelyleave watersheds like <strong>the</strong> Cedar more vulnerable tolow late summer and early fall flows. 3In anticipation of, and eventually <strong>in</strong> response to, <strong>the</strong>ESA list<strong>in</strong>g of ch<strong>in</strong>ook, various stakeholders (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities, SeattleCity Light, <strong>the</strong> Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and variousstate and federal agencies) began negotiat<strong>in</strong>g an<strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> Agreement and Habitat ConservationPlan. All parties except <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tribe signed <strong>the</strong>se<strong>in</strong> April 2000. The Tribe <strong>in</strong>stead filed a lawsuit <strong>in</strong>December 2003 aga<strong>in</strong>st NOAA’s National Mar<strong>in</strong>eFisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) alleg<strong>in</strong>g that itlacked, among o<strong>the</strong>r th<strong>in</strong>gs, sufficient <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationabout <strong>the</strong> impacts of Seattle’s exist<strong>in</strong>g and futurewater withdrawals on ch<strong>in</strong>ook salmon. The City ofSeattle jo<strong>in</strong>ed NOAA Fisheries as a co-defendant,and settlement negotiations commenced.A settlement between NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, and<strong>the</strong> Muckleshoots was reached <strong>in</strong> March 2006. Inexchange <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tribe’s agreement to drop <strong>the</strong>litigation, among o<strong>the</strong>r th<strong>in</strong>gs, Seattle agreed to:Limit withdrawals from <strong>the</strong> Cedar to no more than124 million gallons per day as an annual averageand a ten year roll<strong>in</strong>g average not to exceed 114mgd. That compares to a historic peak annualdiversion of 144 mgd;Comply with <strong>the</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>Agreement <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g meet<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>imum flowsand supplemental flows beyond <strong>the</strong> 50-year termof <strong>the</strong> HCP; andTransfer any perfected portion of its claim thatexceeds 124 mgd to Wash<strong>in</strong>gton State’s trustwater rights program <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream purposes. 41 Personal communication, Al Dietemann, Seattle PublicUtilities, July 2011. Also www.cityofseattle.net/util/About_SPU/<strong>Water</strong>_System/<strong>Water</strong>_Sources_&_Treatment/Tolt_River_<strong>Water</strong>shed/<strong>in</strong>dex.asp.The Cedar River is managed conjunctively with o<strong>the</strong>r sourcesof Seattle’s supply (<strong>the</strong> Tolt River and Highl<strong>in</strong>e well field comprise<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r 30 percent). Some <strong>in</strong>dividual member utilitieshave o<strong>the</strong>r sources of supply as well.2 www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-List<strong>in</strong>gs/Salmon-Populations/Ch<strong>in</strong>ook/CKPUG.cfm.3 https://digital.lib.wash<strong>in</strong>gton.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/16529/Lundquist.pdf?sequence=2.4 Integrated Approaches to River<strong>in</strong>e Resource Stewardship:Case Studies, Science, Law, People, and Policy, <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>Council, Chapter 3 “Cedar River, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton,” 2008, pp. 62-63.23 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
The settlement agreement also <strong>in</strong>cluded cont<strong>in</strong>uedwater conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts to help ensure that flowswould rema<strong>in</strong> adequate <strong>for</strong> salmon and steelheadand to allow Seattle to grow <strong>in</strong> population withoutviolat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> water quantities specified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> settlementagreement.The City of Seattle has implemented aggressive ratestructure and water conservation programs, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>ga variety of rebates on appliances <strong>for</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gle andmulti-family residential and commercial build<strong>in</strong>gs.The city has also implemented a program to capneighborhood reservoirs to reduce system lossesdue to clean<strong>in</strong>g, flush<strong>in</strong>g, and evaporation. (SeeResource Section 1.)The long term water regional water conservationprograms <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> City of Seattle and a group of 17neighbor<strong>in</strong>g utilities also us<strong>in</strong>g water from Seattle’sCedar River diversion have played a significant part <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> reductions <strong>in</strong> 2009 water consumption of 41 mgdor 24 percent s<strong>in</strong>ce 1990, while population <strong>in</strong>creased18 percent dur<strong>in</strong>g that same period. On a per capitabasis, water consumption was reduced from 152 to98 gallons per day. 5 Most importantly <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> healthof <strong>the</strong> Cedar River and its imperiled fisheries, <strong>the</strong> riverhas consistently met its <strong>in</strong>stream flow commitmentsunder <strong>the</strong> Agreement and Plan. 65 Regional 1% <strong>Water</strong> Conservation Program 2009 AnnualReport, pp. 2, 4 http://www.sav<strong>in</strong>gwater.org/docs/2009%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Five utilities that were partof <strong>the</strong> 1% Program left <strong>the</strong> program <strong>in</strong> 2004 and are pursu<strong>in</strong>gconservation on <strong>the</strong>ir own.6 http://www.seattle.gov/util/groups/public/@spu/@ssw/documents/webcontent/spu02_015213.pdf.Deschutes RiverBas<strong>in</strong>, Oregon:Role of <strong>the</strong> NonprofitCentral Oregon’s Deschutes River bas<strong>in</strong>, which<strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>the</strong> cities of Bend and Redmond, has anunusual and extensive array of <strong>in</strong>novative agriculturaland municipal conservation programs underway. TheDeschutes showcases <strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed power of agriculturaland urban conservation and efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsoccurr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same part of <strong>the</strong> same river bas<strong>in</strong>,and <strong>the</strong> role of a nonprofit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts. Ef<strong>for</strong>tsto restore and protect streamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Deschuteshave been motivated <strong>in</strong> part by a need to protect<strong>the</strong> health of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listedsteelhead trout downstream. But <strong>the</strong>y are also aboutma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Deschutes bas<strong>in</strong>’s quality of life andextensive recreational opportunities, which <strong>in</strong>cludefish<strong>in</strong>g, hik<strong>in</strong>g, and raft<strong>in</strong>g.The Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC) has playeda key coord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g and fund<strong>in</strong>g role <strong>in</strong> virtuallyall of <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>ts to improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Deschutes and its tributaries. The non-profit DRC<strong>for</strong>med <strong>in</strong> 1996 by a broad range of agricultural,governmental, municipal, tribal, and water andenergy utility <strong>in</strong>terests to restore streamflowsand improve water quality <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Deschutes Bas<strong>in</strong>us<strong>in</strong>g collaborative and market based techniques.Through a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of water leases, permanentacquisitions and efficiency projects, <strong>the</strong> DRC’sprograms have returned 160 cubic feet per second(cfs) to <strong>the</strong> Deschutes River and its tributaries. 7 TheDRC has helped local irrigators apply <strong>for</strong> money <strong>for</strong>water conservation projects or water leases from avariety of sources, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Bonneville PowerAdm<strong>in</strong>istration’s water transactions program, <strong>the</strong>Oregon <strong>Water</strong>shed Enhancement Board, and <strong>the</strong>Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Agricultural <strong>Water</strong>shed Enhancement Program. 87 http://www.deschutesriver.org/About_Us/History/default.aspx. The DRC’s 29 member board operates by 100 percentconsensus.8 Personal communication with Zach Tillman, DRC, Dec. 2010.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>24
The Deschutes projects are often cited by o<strong>the</strong>rs<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> west as examples of success. The somewhatunique geology and hydrology of <strong>the</strong> Deschutes(local volcanic soils absorb an unusually highproportion of water from unl<strong>in</strong>ed irrigation ditches,<strong>for</strong> example 9 ) means that <strong>in</strong>stream benefits canmore easily accrue from conservation and efficiencyprojects. <strong>Water</strong> protected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper Deschutesis generally protected to <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of return flows,which is generally Lake Billy Ch<strong>in</strong>ook, a downstreamreservoir.We highlight below several projects <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>girrigation conveyance systems and on-farm irrigation.We also describe a municipal program <strong>in</strong> Bend anda Bonneville Environmental Foundation programthat funds water leas<strong>in</strong>g ra<strong>the</strong>r than conservationand efficiency, but which could be ref<strong>in</strong>ed to fundconservation and efficiency projects as well ormatch residential conservation program sav<strong>in</strong>gswith <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvements as outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>University of Arizona Conserve to Enhance concept. 10Central Oregon Irrigation DistrictPip<strong>in</strong>g ProjectThe Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) piped2.5 miles of open ditch to reduce diversions by 19.6cfs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper Deschutes north of Bend. This wateris protected <strong>in</strong>stream through Oregon’s Conserved<strong>Water</strong> Program, 11 which promotes <strong>the</strong> conservationof water, maximizes beneficial use of water, andenhances streamflows by requir<strong>in</strong>g that at least 25percent of water saved by a water conservationproject be protected permanently <strong>in</strong>stream. As anadded <strong>in</strong>centive to <strong>the</strong> project, <strong>the</strong> pipe <strong>in</strong>cludes ahydroelectric generator capable of produc<strong>in</strong>g 5 MW.The project cost $24 million and was funded fromseveral sources—<strong>the</strong> DRC, US Bureau of Reclamation(USBR), Oregon <strong>Water</strong> Enhancement Board, OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality (Clean <strong>Water</strong>State Revolv<strong>in</strong>g Fund) and Oregon Departmentof Energy. 12 COID, primarily an agricultural waterprovider, also supplies <strong>in</strong>dustry and municipal use<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>.Three Sisters Irrigation District Pip<strong>in</strong>gand On-Farm ProjectsSimilar to <strong>the</strong> COID project described above, <strong>the</strong>Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID), locatednorthwest of Bend near <strong>the</strong> town of Sisters, is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>process of a multiphase project, convert<strong>in</strong>g 5,200feet of its exist<strong>in</strong>g unl<strong>in</strong>ed ma<strong>in</strong> canal to buried pipel<strong>in</strong>e,<strong>in</strong>stall<strong>in</strong>g four new automated fish screen weirgates, and putt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to place a Supervisory Controland Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Over 30 milesof <strong>the</strong> 60-mile system is now piped. The project isexpected to result <strong>in</strong> 2,550 acre-feet of water sav<strong>in</strong>gsannually <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper Deschutes. All 2,550 acre-feethas been or will be purchased by <strong>the</strong> DRC (whichalso helped pay <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> project) <strong>for</strong> a protected<strong>in</strong>stream right, complement<strong>in</strong>g habitat restorationef<strong>for</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> Whychus Creek <strong>for</strong> threatened steelheadand bull trout and o<strong>the</strong>r fish species. In addition toimprov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> efficiency of its irrigation conveyancesystem, TSID is work<strong>in</strong>g with 30 of its member farmsto switch from rill and wheel l<strong>in</strong>e spr<strong>in</strong>klers to centerpivot spr<strong>in</strong>kler systems. These on-farm conservationef<strong>for</strong>ts were f<strong>in</strong>anced by <strong>the</strong> NRCS’s Agricultural<strong>Water</strong>shed Enhancement Program. 13While <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream benefit of this on-farm conservationhas nei<strong>the</strong>r been quantified nor legallyprotected, it complements ef<strong>for</strong>ts to boost streamflowsand improve water supply reliability achievedthrough pip<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> district’s conveyance system. As aresult of <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts by <strong>the</strong> district and its partners<strong>the</strong>re is a permanently protected m<strong>in</strong>imum flow <strong>in</strong>Whychus Creek of 15.6 cfs. 14.26 cfs of this flow has apriority dat<strong>in</strong>g to 1895 or earlier. The on-farm deliverieshave <strong>in</strong>creased as much as 25 percent at <strong>the</strong> sametime that <strong>in</strong>stream flows have <strong>in</strong>creased.9 http://www.deschutesriver.org/What_We_Do/Streamflow_Restoration/<strong>Water</strong>_Conservation/default.aspx.10 http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azwater/conserve2enhance.html.11 In order to put conserved water to a new use, you must gothrough Oregon’s Conserved <strong>Water</strong> Program (o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it’senlargement of <strong>the</strong> water right). Conserved water that isused <strong>in</strong>stream is protected to <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of return flows; <strong>in</strong> thisexample, this is generally Lake Billy Ch<strong>in</strong>ook.12 Personal communication with Steven Johnson, COID, Oct. 2010and Zach Tillman, June 2011.13 Personal communication with Marc Thalacker, TSID, Jan. 2011.http://www.tsidonl<strong>in</strong>e.org/, http://www.deschutesriver.org/What_We_Do/Streamflow_Restoration/<strong>Water</strong>_Conservation/default.aspx and http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/2009_Project_Areas/fy09/<strong>in</strong>dex.html.25 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Avion <strong>Water</strong> Company’s Blue <strong>Water</strong>ProgramThe Avion <strong>Water</strong> Company, one of two privatemunicipal suppliers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bend area, partnered with<strong>the</strong> DRC to create <strong>the</strong> Blue <strong>Water</strong> program, whichprovides Avion customers an opportunity to supportDRC ef<strong>for</strong>ts to <strong>in</strong>crease flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Deschutes Riverthrough donations automatically added to eachmonth’s water bill. Funds raised through <strong>the</strong> Blue<strong>Water</strong> program are allocated to <strong>the</strong> DRC’s streamflowenhancement ef<strong>for</strong>ts (leases only). A total of $14,589has been raised through <strong>the</strong> program s<strong>in</strong>ce 2007.Through 2008, Blue <strong>Water</strong> funds had been used topay <strong>for</strong> 1,470 acre-feet of water leases, and ano<strong>the</strong>r1,668 acre-feet of <strong>in</strong>stream flows were expected tobe leased <strong>in</strong> 2009. 14The City of Bend provides residential water conservation<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation, but no <strong>for</strong>mal conservationprograms. The City’s residential irrigation regulationcontrols outdoor water<strong>in</strong>g.Bonneville Environmental Foundation’s<strong>Water</strong> Restoration CertificatesUnlike <strong>the</strong> Blue <strong>Water</strong> program <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bend area,anyone liv<strong>in</strong>g anywhere can purchase a “<strong>Water</strong>Restoration Certificate” from <strong>the</strong> non-profit BonnevilleEnvironmental Foundation (BEF). The programaccepts any donation amount, but one option is todonate an amount based on a calculation of one’shome or bus<strong>in</strong>ess water use and donate funds that“offset” that water use by stream restoration <strong>in</strong>ano<strong>the</strong>r location. The program also provides <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationabout more efficient water use. The Deschutesis one of three river bas<strong>in</strong>s (<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs are <strong>the</strong> RogueRiver <strong>in</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn Oregon and Prickly Pear Creek <strong>in</strong>Montana) that receive fund<strong>in</strong>g from this BEFprogram. 15 Restoration projects are screened andselected by <strong>the</strong> National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.Toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> FY10 <strong>the</strong>se programs restored over 11,000acre-feet of water to critically dewatered streams <strong>in</strong>Oregon and Montana.Conserve to Enhance ModelPilot Project <strong>in</strong> Tucson, ArizonaUniversity of Arizona researchers have proposedto l<strong>in</strong>k residents’ concern <strong>for</strong> environmentalprotection with more efficient residential wateruse. Interest <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>novative model is highwest-wide. The approach is be<strong>in</strong>g pilot tested<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> first time <strong>in</strong> Tucson <strong>in</strong> 2011.A participant can dedicate a portion of <strong>the</strong>dollar sav<strong>in</strong>gs on <strong>the</strong>ir water utility bill, earnedfrom more efficient water use, to a specificstream restoration project <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> community. Alocal advisory board def<strong>in</strong>es criteria and selectsspecific restoration projects. This pilot programdesign transfers money, not actual water.While <strong>the</strong> current focus is on residential waterusers, <strong>the</strong> program could apply across <strong>the</strong>municipal sector, to bus<strong>in</strong>ess and <strong>in</strong>dustry.For more <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation see www.cals.arizona.edu/azwater/conserve2enhance and http://watershedmg.org/c2e.14 http://www.deschutesriver.org/Blue_<strong>Water</strong>/default.aspx andhttp://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/files/Secur<strong>in</strong>g<strong>Water</strong><strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong>Environment_IJS-f<strong>in</strong>al.pdf.15 http://www.b-e-f.org/water/cert and personal communicationwith Zach Tillman, DRC, June 2011.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>26
Grand Valley, Colorado River, Colorado:Moderniz<strong>in</strong>g Irrigation DiversionsThe Government Highl<strong>in</strong>e Canal <strong>in</strong> Colorado isperhaps <strong>the</strong> most prom<strong>in</strong>ent example of <strong>the</strong> modernizationof a large-scale irrigation diversion canal<strong>in</strong> a manner that has led to significantly reduceddiversions and correspond<strong>in</strong>g improvements <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>stream flows. Similar projects, most of which haveyet to be completed, are underway across <strong>the</strong> West.Toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se examples show that while <strong>the</strong> costof canal modernization projects can vary considerablydepend<strong>in</strong>g on scale and complexity, improved<strong>in</strong>stream flow <strong>in</strong> a stream stretch is possible as oneresult of <strong>the</strong> project.The Government Highl<strong>in</strong>e Canal is part of <strong>the</strong> USBureau of Reclamation (USBR) Grand Valley Project <strong>in</strong>western Colorado. It is located near Grand Junctionand <strong>the</strong> Colorado River’s confluence with <strong>the</strong>Gunnison River. As part of <strong>the</strong> multi-agency UpperColorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program,this project was undertaken to retrofit operation of<strong>the</strong> Government Highl<strong>in</strong>e Canal to better matchwater diversions with on-farm demand. Thesereduced water diversions leave more water <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ma<strong>in</strong> stem of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River to benefit <strong>the</strong>endangered razorback sucker, Colorado pikem<strong>in</strong>now,humpback chub, and bonytail. 16Modernized canal <strong>in</strong>frastructure and systems,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g SCADA computerized control systems,<strong>in</strong>-system storage (seven new and modified checkdams), and new operational procedures, wereprojected to reduce diversions by 28,500 acre-feetof water per year. 17 In practice, <strong>the</strong> project hasexceeded that goal, reduc<strong>in</strong>g irrigation diversionsby an average of 36,463 acre-feet per year over <strong>the</strong>2002 to 2010 period of operation. Reduc<strong>in</strong>g irrigationdiversions also provides <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>for</strong> deliveryof stored water <strong>in</strong> Green Mounta<strong>in</strong> Reservoir toaugment <strong>in</strong>stream flows. 18The project improves flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> biologically importantbut historically depleted 15 mile reach of <strong>the</strong>Colorado upriver of its confluence with <strong>the</strong> Gunnison.But <strong>the</strong>se flows, once released from upriver storageat Green Mounta<strong>in</strong> Reservoir <strong>in</strong> compliance with <strong>the</strong>Orchard Mesa Check Case 19 and <strong>the</strong> Green Mounta<strong>in</strong>Reservoir Historic Users Pool, 20 are protected bylocal circumstances ra<strong>the</strong>r than by law. Coloradowater law makes it very difficult to protect conservedwater <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposes, but <strong>the</strong> fact that<strong>the</strong>re are no o<strong>the</strong>r diversions <strong>in</strong> that stretch of rivermeans that prohibit<strong>in</strong>g o<strong>the</strong>rs from us<strong>in</strong>g that wateris not generally necessary. In some water short years,however, saved water may prove vulnerable to be<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>tercepted by o<strong>the</strong>r water users absent future legalprotection. 21 <strong>Water</strong> rights <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong>Users Association (GVWUA) have been allocated to<strong>the</strong> lands through agreements dat<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> early1900s between <strong>the</strong> GVWUA and owners of irrigablelands; when land ownership changes, <strong>the</strong> water stayswith <strong>the</strong> land and cannot be sold separately.The project cost was approximately $8 million<strong>in</strong> capital costs and $1.25 million <strong>in</strong> capitalizedannual cost, or $11.73 per acre-foot per year. 22Capital costs were f<strong>in</strong>anced by <strong>the</strong> Upper ColoradoRiver Endangered Fish Recovery Program, which isfunded through federal appropriations, ColoradoRiver Storage Project hydropower revenues, andcash and <strong>in</strong>-k<strong>in</strong>d contributions from non-federalentities (primarily <strong>the</strong> states of Colorado, Utah, andWyom<strong>in</strong>g). This amounts to approximately a 50-50federal/non-federal cost share. The <strong>in</strong>creased annualoperations and ma<strong>in</strong>tenance costs of <strong>the</strong> project arefunded through a grant from <strong>the</strong> Colorado <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Board to <strong>the</strong> GVWUA. 23 Additional flowimprovements <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 15 mile reach are planned <strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong> near future. A similar irrigation canal modernizationproject <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Orchard Mesa Irrigation District16 “Uilenberg and Norman, Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong> ManagementProject” p. 3.17 http://www.itrc.org/reports/highl<strong>in</strong>e/highl<strong>in</strong>e.pdf andUilenberg and Norman, “Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong> ManagementProject” sent via email.18 Personal communication with Brent Uilenberg, USBR, May 2011.19 The Orchard Mesa Check Case was <strong>the</strong> result of a federalapplication <strong>for</strong> an appropriative right of exchange waterright <strong>in</strong> Colorado water court (Case No. 91CW247). Personalcommunication with Brent Uilenberg, USBR, May 2011.20 Uilenberg and Norman, “Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong> ManagementProject” sent via email.21 Personal communication with Dick Wolfe and Adam Martellaro,Colorado Division of <strong>Water</strong> Resources, 2011.22 Uilenberg and Norman, “Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong> ManagementProject” sent via email.23 Personal communication with Brent Uilenberg, USBR, May 2011.27 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
on <strong>the</strong> opposite side of <strong>the</strong> river from Grand Valleyis be<strong>in</strong>g funded through <strong>the</strong> American Re<strong>in</strong>vestmentand Recovery Act, and it is expected to yield ano<strong>the</strong>r17,000 acre-feet per year <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits.Construction is expected to commence on <strong>the</strong>Orchard Mesa project by federal fiscal year 2012. 24The Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong> Management Project is nowwidely considered a “w<strong>in</strong>-w<strong>in</strong>” <strong>for</strong> farmers and <strong>the</strong>environment, but it didn’t start off that way. Initially,<strong>the</strong>re was resistance among irrigators to exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gwater use and concern with <strong>the</strong> ability of <strong>the</strong> SCADAtechnology to achieve its promise of more preciseand timely water deliveries. Irrigators now largelyembrace <strong>the</strong> enhanced precision of <strong>the</strong> new system.While <strong>the</strong> flow benefits from <strong>the</strong> Grand Valley <strong>Water</strong>Management Project are clear, <strong>the</strong> listed species <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> 15 mile reach of <strong>the</strong> Colorado still face barriers torecovery, among <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> unaddressed proliferationof non-native fish species.Similar irrigation diversion canal modernizationprojects <strong>in</strong>clude:Sunnyside Irrigation District, Yakima River,Wash<strong>in</strong>gton (Planned)The Sunnyside Canal Improvement Project is <strong>the</strong>result of a settlement agreement between <strong>the</strong> USBR,<strong>the</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Department of Ecology (Ecology), <strong>the</strong>Yakama Indian Nation, and <strong>the</strong> Sunnyside DivisionBoard of Control <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yakima Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> RightsAdjudication. Under <strong>the</strong> agreement, Sunnyside ValleyIrrigation District will reduce its annual diversion by19,450 acre-feet (two-thirds of <strong>the</strong> water saved by <strong>the</strong>project) to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows and will reta<strong>in</strong> 9,712acre-feet (one-third) annually to improve <strong>the</strong> availabilityof water supplies <strong>for</strong> irrigation.The project is expected to cost about $32.6 million<strong>in</strong> year 2000 dollars over a n<strong>in</strong>e year period. Federal<strong>Water</strong>SMART grant funds will cover 65 percent oftotal project costs with Ecology and Sunnyside eachpick<strong>in</strong>g up 17.5 percent. The federal Yakima RiverBas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Enhancement Program requires thattwo-thirds of <strong>the</strong> saved water goes <strong>in</strong>stream, which isplaced <strong>in</strong> trust under Wash<strong>in</strong>gton’s trust water rightsstatute.Lower Yellowstone, Montana (Planned)The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project Board ofControl <strong>in</strong> Montana will <strong>in</strong>stall or improve watercontrol structures, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g spillway structures,pump<strong>in</strong>g stations, and monitor<strong>in</strong>g stations, to provideSCADA communications with 17 key sites along <strong>the</strong>applicant’s 330-mile distribution system. A new diversionstructure that can accommodate fish screenswill also be <strong>in</strong>stalled as part of <strong>the</strong> Pallid SturgeonRecovery Program. The project is expected to reduce<strong>the</strong> Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project’s diversionsfrom <strong>the</strong> Yellowstone River by 40,000 acre-feet annually.This water will rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Yellowstone River.The project is expected to cost $596,826.Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os Mutual <strong>Water</strong> Company,Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Planned)The Los Mol<strong>in</strong>os Mutual <strong>Water</strong> Company, located<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper Sacramento Valley near Red Bluff,Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, will <strong>in</strong>stall computer management systems,a custom Geographic In<strong>for</strong>mation System, and SCADAdata loggers to more effectively manage its deliverysystem. The system modernization and conservationproject is expected to result <strong>in</strong> water sav<strong>in</strong>gs ofapproximately 3,000 acre-feet annually. Conservedwater will rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mill Creek to benefit ch<strong>in</strong>ooksalmon and steelhead migration. The entire projectis expected to cost $222,675.24 Personal communication with Brent Uilenberg, USBR, Jan. 2011.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>28
Manastash Creek, Yakima Bas<strong>in</strong>, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton:Agricultural EfficienciesManastash Creek beg<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> eastern foothills of<strong>the</strong> Cascade Mounta<strong>in</strong>s and heads nor<strong>the</strong>ast whereit flows <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> Yakima River near Ellensburg,Wash<strong>in</strong>gton. The Manastash Creek RestorationProject is work<strong>in</strong>g to improve <strong>in</strong>stream flow, fishscreen<strong>in</strong>g and passage <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower six miles of<strong>the</strong> creek that are affected by irrigation diversionsand <strong>in</strong>frastructure. The Project is governed by <strong>the</strong>Manastash Creek Steer<strong>in</strong>g Committee comprised ofManastash Creek Irrigators, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Adm<strong>in</strong>istration,Department of Ecology, Yakama Nation, Wash<strong>in</strong>gtonEnvironmental Council, and NOAA Fisheries. A 2007plan to restore flows and habitat <strong>in</strong> Manastash Creekcomb<strong>in</strong>es various agricultural water delivery systemefficiencies with improved on-farm efficiency and a“reverse auction” to purchase <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights ona will<strong>in</strong>g seller basis.The creek was historically home to steelhead troutand coho salmon, but steelhead became rare dueto factors both with<strong>in</strong> and outside of <strong>the</strong> Manastashwatershed, and coho were extirpated when diversionsmade <strong>the</strong> creek go dry by early summer. Localfarmers irrigate high-grade hay that is sold abroad,as well as sweet corn, wheat and oats <strong>in</strong> rotation withhay. The area also provides pasture <strong>for</strong> commercialand smaller scale livestock.In 2001, <strong>the</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Environmental Council (WEC)sent a letter of <strong>in</strong>tent to sue to Manastash Creekirrigators <strong>for</strong> a “take” of Manastash Creek steelhead,which are part of a larger steelhead population thatis listed as threatened under <strong>the</strong> Endangered SpeciesAct. WEC alleged that unscreened, impassable, and<strong>in</strong>efficient water diversions were directly responsible<strong>for</strong> kill<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> fish. The letter resulted <strong>in</strong> a meet<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> early 2001 that led to a multi-year collaborativeprocess. That process brought about <strong>the</strong> restorationplan backed by fund<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton StateLegislature. In 2003, Jay Mann<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong>n a lawyer <strong>in</strong>private practice who until recently served as Chief ofStaff to Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Governor Christ<strong>in</strong>e Gregoire, saidof <strong>the</strong> Manastash, “[t]his project is about mak<strong>in</strong>g real,on-<strong>the</strong>-ground ef<strong>for</strong>ts to conserve water and protectfish habitat, all <strong>the</strong> while ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g water use <strong>for</strong>farmers.” 25In 2007, <strong>the</strong> Manastash Steer<strong>in</strong>g Committee signed<strong>the</strong> “Manastash Creek Restoration Project <strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong> Enhancement Implementation Plan” which aimsto enhance flows and habitat <strong>in</strong> Manastash Creek with<strong>the</strong> ultimate goal of reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> length and durationthat <strong>the</strong> 3.25 mile stretch is dewatered. The project<strong>in</strong>volves convert<strong>in</strong>g ditches to pipe, consolidat<strong>in</strong>gfour irrigation diversions <strong>in</strong>to one, improv<strong>in</strong>g on-farmefficiency (mostly rill irrigation to spr<strong>in</strong>kler irrigation),and a “reverse auction” to purchase <strong>in</strong>streamflow rights on a will<strong>in</strong>g seller basis. One of <strong>the</strong> keysto success is provid<strong>in</strong>g better fish passage through<strong>the</strong> lower five miles of <strong>the</strong> Manastash Creek, wherepassage was historically poor due to low (or no) flowsand physical barriers such as a diversion dam. Abovethat po<strong>in</strong>t, <strong>the</strong> stream has more than 20 miles of highquality fish habitat.The on-farm improvements and water acquisitionhave cost $2,429,357.85 26 to date and have put 6.4 cfsback <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> creek, meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> project’s Phase Onegoal of 6 cfs. Of <strong>the</strong> 6.4 cfs secured to date, abouthalf is <strong>the</strong> result of on-farm conservation (convert<strong>in</strong>grill to spr<strong>in</strong>klers). The rest has come from a “reverse”water rights auction conducted by Wash<strong>in</strong>gton RiversConservancy (now <strong>the</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton <strong>Water</strong> Project ofTrout Unlimited). 27 Additional project componentswill pipe approximately 3,000 feet of unl<strong>in</strong>ed district25 “Partnership Launched Between WEC and Farmers, WECNewsletter, Autumn 2003.26 Email correspondence with Sherry Swanson, KittitasConservation District, May 2011.27 Personal communication with Sherry Swanson, Kittitas CountyConservation District, February 2011 and with Lisa Pelly, TroutUnlimited, April 2011.29 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
ditch with a net water sav<strong>in</strong>gs of 0.8 cfs. In addition,<strong>the</strong>re are currently pend<strong>in</strong>g acquisitions of ano<strong>the</strong>r3–5 cfs of water. These ef<strong>for</strong>ts have <strong>the</strong> potential tore-wet a portion of <strong>the</strong> stream that is typically drydur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> summer and early fall.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to a biologist with NOAA Fisheries,Manastash Creek could provide habitat <strong>for</strong> more than50 spawn<strong>in</strong>g pairs of steelhead per year and potentiallymore than 1,000 coho salmon. 28 The projecthas been funded by <strong>the</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton <strong>Water</strong> Projectof Trout Unlimited, Kittitas County ConservationDistrict’s Bonneville Power <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> grant, <strong>the</strong>Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Dept. of Ecology and its Columbia River<strong>Water</strong> Management Program, Bonneville Power’sColumbia Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Transactions Program, WSCCIrrigation Efficiencies Grant Program and <strong>the</strong> NRCSAgricultural <strong>Water</strong>shed Enhancement Program. 29Wash<strong>in</strong>gton’s Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River, whichis help<strong>in</strong>g fund pip<strong>in</strong>g of an unl<strong>in</strong>ed irrigationditch that will improve flows <strong>in</strong> Manastash Creek,was created by an <strong>in</strong>novative 2006 state watermanagement law. The law has broken a gridlockbetween water users seek<strong>in</strong>g new water rightsor more certa<strong>in</strong> water supplies on one hand,and environmentalists and tribes seek<strong>in</strong>g flowimprovements <strong>for</strong> salmon and steelhead, on <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r. New water rights are now be<strong>in</strong>g issued, and<strong>the</strong>re are several projects completed or underwayto improve streamflows, particularly <strong>in</strong> tributaries of<strong>the</strong> Columbia River. The law provided $200 million <strong>in</strong>fund<strong>in</strong>g to be split among new surface and aquiferstorage, re-operation of exist<strong>in</strong>g reservoirs, andconservation and efficiency projects.In addition to contribut<strong>in</strong>g to more efficient irrigationconveyance <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future at Manastash Creek, <strong>the</strong>Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River is fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> completionof two large efficiency projects with benefits <strong>for</strong>streamflows:Barker Ranch, Yakima River, Wash<strong>in</strong>gtonThis project <strong>in</strong>volved canal pip<strong>in</strong>g to a restoredwetland refuge that depends on irrigation water.Between 3.5 and 10 cfs, depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> month, isconserved, total<strong>in</strong>g 6,436 acre feet/year on <strong>the</strong> watershortlower Yakima River at a cost of $5.6 million. 30The wetlands on Barker Ranch support at least 175different species of birds as well as o<strong>the</strong>r terrestrialwildlife like coyotes, badgers, and deer. 31Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong> Project Irrigation Districts,Columbia River ma<strong>in</strong>stem, Oregon/Wash<strong>in</strong>gtonThis project of three related irrigation districts (East,South, and Qu<strong>in</strong>cy) <strong>in</strong>volves pip<strong>in</strong>g and l<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g ofopen ditches to save 5,450 acre-feet of ColumbiaRiver water. The water is not left <strong>in</strong>stream, ra<strong>the</strong>r itis spread to a groundwater-dependent area that isrunn<strong>in</strong>g out of water and would o<strong>the</strong>rwise requiremore water from <strong>the</strong> Columbia River or would needto convert to dryland farm<strong>in</strong>g. The cost of <strong>the</strong> projectis $3 million. 3228 http://www.cbwtp.org/jsp/cbwtp/stories/stories.jsp.29 Personal communication with Sherry Swanson, Feb. 2011.30 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/barker.html.31 See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/crwmp.htmland http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/images/pdf/projectmap.pdf.32 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/CBID.html.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>30
North Fork Blackfoot River, Montana:Individual On-Farm Ef<strong>for</strong>tsA grow<strong>in</strong>g number of cases around <strong>the</strong> West partner<strong>in</strong>dividual farmers and ranchers with non-profitorganizations to make <strong>the</strong>ir irrigation practices moreefficient, often <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with o<strong>the</strong>r restorationwork. A prime example of this sort of project <strong>in</strong>volvesJohn and Irene Weaver, long-time ranchers nearOvando, Montana who worked with <strong>the</strong> Montana<strong>Water</strong> Project of Trout Unlimited (TU) to make <strong>the</strong>irrigation supply <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir pasture much moreefficient. The project has significantly benefitedESA-listed bull trout.Prior to be<strong>in</strong>g approached by TU, <strong>the</strong> Weavers hadobta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>ir irrigation water by divert<strong>in</strong>g 20 cfs <strong>in</strong>toan old, leaky canal well upstream of <strong>the</strong>ir property.The canal took a lot of work to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>, and <strong>the</strong>prospect of a lower ma<strong>in</strong>tenance, higher efficiencysystem appealed to <strong>the</strong> Weavers. 33 By replac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>canal and upstream diversion with a two cfs pumpdirectly from <strong>the</strong> river and by convert<strong>in</strong>g from wheell<strong>in</strong>espr<strong>in</strong>kler irrigation to a center pivot spr<strong>in</strong>kler,<strong>the</strong> Weavers were able to execute a 30-year lease of18.5 cfs to TU <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream purposes.The <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvement has made a bigdifference to local bull trout, which now are able toreach upstream spawn<strong>in</strong>g grounds. Trout Unlimitedfunded <strong>the</strong> project and walked <strong>the</strong> landownersthrough <strong>the</strong> process. The Weavers are happy tohave been <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> project <strong>for</strong> its streamflowbenefits, and have found <strong>the</strong> new system to be easierto operate and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>. “Every year, it took us aboutfour to five days of dang tough work to clean thatditch,” said John Weaver. “I’ve wanted to get off thatditch <strong>for</strong> years. Because of <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ancial help, I f<strong>in</strong>allygot it done.” 34 Fund<strong>in</strong>g partners on this project<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>the</strong> US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), <strong>the</strong>Big Blackfoot Chapter of TU, <strong>the</strong> Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong><strong>Water</strong> Transactions Program, and <strong>the</strong> Weavers.Partnerships have been <strong>the</strong> key to <strong>the</strong> success of<strong>the</strong> Blackfoot Project. Partnerships take many <strong>for</strong>ms<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g technical expertise, f<strong>in</strong>ancial assistance,materials, <strong>in</strong>-k<strong>in</strong>d labor, and moral support. Keypartners <strong>in</strong>clude private landowners, TU and o<strong>the</strong>rnonprofits, Montana state agencies, several federalagencies, North Powell Conservation District, severalfoundations, Plum Creek Timber Company, MontanaPower Company, Orvis Company, and many o<strong>the</strong>rs.Similar small-scale but biologically significant on-farmefficiency projects exist around <strong>the</strong> west, partner<strong>in</strong>gfarmers and nonprofits, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g:Little Bear Creek, Cache Valley, UtahA farmer switched from flood irrigation to a comb<strong>in</strong>ationof center pivot and pit irrigation, and moved<strong>the</strong> diversion from this cutthroat trout-bear<strong>in</strong>g creekdownstream to <strong>the</strong> South Fork of Bear Creek. Thisdoubled <strong>the</strong> flow (from 3–6 cfs) <strong>in</strong> a 7.2 mile sectionof Little Bear Creek. The water pressure <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> centerpivots provides micro-hydro, and <strong>the</strong> whole projectonly cost about $250,000. It was coord<strong>in</strong>ated by <strong>the</strong>Utah <strong>Water</strong> Project of TU. A neighbor of <strong>the</strong> farmer isnow <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> do<strong>in</strong>g a similar project on his land,which will fur<strong>the</strong>r benefit <strong>the</strong> flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> creek. 35N<strong>in</strong>e Mile Creek, Tributary to Little ClarkFork, MontanaN<strong>in</strong>e Mile Creek flows <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> Little Clark Fork andhas a significant bull trout and westslope cutthroatpopulation. Improved on-farm efficiency (wheel l<strong>in</strong>e<strong>in</strong>stead of flood), decommissioned ditches, downstreammovement of a diversion pump, discont<strong>in</strong>uedirrigation on part of a ranch, and restoration of anarea around an old pump composed <strong>the</strong> project,which was coord<strong>in</strong>ated by <strong>the</strong> Clark Fork Coalition.The project received $75,000 <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> wheel l<strong>in</strong>e from<strong>the</strong> Bonneville Power Adm<strong>in</strong>istration’s ColumbiaBas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Transactions Program.33 Personal communication with Stan Bradshaw, TU, Feb. 2011.34 http://www.tu.org/waterpartners.35 Personal communication with Tim Hawkes, TU, Nov. 2010.31 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Badger Creek, Little Lost River Dra<strong>in</strong>age,IdahoTU worked with landowners on Badger Creek, a bulltrout spawn<strong>in</strong>g tributary, 36 to reconnect <strong>the</strong> streamwith <strong>the</strong> Little Lost River and to restore a half-milesection of Badger Creek. One farm<strong>in</strong>g and ranch<strong>in</strong>gfamily owns all of <strong>the</strong> private land surround<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>confluence of Badger Creek with <strong>the</strong> Little LostRiver, and <strong>the</strong>y historically diverted all its water <strong>for</strong>agricultural operations. TU worked with <strong>the</strong> familyto change <strong>the</strong>ir po<strong>in</strong>t of diversion from BadgerCreek to <strong>the</strong> Little Lost River, us<strong>in</strong>g FWS fund<strong>in</strong>g to<strong>in</strong>stall a new diversion with fish passage on <strong>the</strong> LittleLost River and NRCS fund<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>stall a gravity-fedpipel<strong>in</strong>e and center pivot irrigation system. This hasresulted <strong>in</strong> less water diverted <strong>for</strong> irrigation while<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g agricultural productivity. Because of<strong>the</strong> conversion to center pivot spr<strong>in</strong>klers, a smalleramount of water will be diverted from <strong>the</strong> BadgerCreek/Little Lost River system.The difference will rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream, although it willbe available <strong>for</strong> diversion by <strong>the</strong> water right holdersif <strong>the</strong>y revert to flood irrigation. In addition, irrigationwater is now taken from <strong>the</strong> Little Lost River, which iswater quality impaired, and leaves cold, clean waterfrom Badger Creek <strong>in</strong>stream, reconnect<strong>in</strong>g 6.4 milesof spawn<strong>in</strong>g habitat. The new po<strong>in</strong>t of diversionallowed TU to negotiate a 30-year non-diversionagreement with <strong>the</strong> irrigators on Badger Creek us<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Transactions Program. Thenon-diversion agreement ensures full natural flows;<strong>the</strong> diversion was removed as part of <strong>the</strong> restorationef<strong>for</strong>t, and <strong>the</strong>re are no o<strong>the</strong>r downstream diverters.Us<strong>in</strong>g a mix of funds from private, state, and federalsources, TU also restored and fenced Badger Creekto improve habitat. Recent fish population researchshows that <strong>the</strong> reconnection and restoration projecthas benefited bull trout spawn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Badger Creek.Rock Creek, North Fork BlackfootDra<strong>in</strong>age, MontanaA rancher with 80 acres of pasture converted fromflood irrigation to center pivot on 55 acres with <strong>the</strong>assistance of TU. The conservation on <strong>the</strong> ranch,which had <strong>for</strong>merly dried up <strong>the</strong> creek dur<strong>in</strong>girrigation season, block<strong>in</strong>g migration of both fluvialwestlope cutthroat and bull trout to upstreamspawn<strong>in</strong>g grounds, now allowed at least 1.5 cfs torema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> stream under a lease. In comb<strong>in</strong>ationwith floodpla<strong>in</strong> and riparian restoration activities, <strong>the</strong>on-farm efficiency has kept <strong>the</strong> middle reaches of <strong>the</strong>creek flow<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g critical westslope cutthroat andbull trout migration periods s<strong>in</strong>ce 2005. 37 Fund<strong>in</strong>gpartners <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rock creek project <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>the</strong> BigBlackfoot Chapter of TU, NRCS, and <strong>the</strong> ColumbiaBas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Transactions program.36 http://www.tu.org/waterpartners, personal communicationwith Scott Yates, TU, Nov. 2010.37 Personal communication with Stan Bradshaw, Feb. 2011.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>32
Russian River, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia: More Natural <strong>Flow</strong>sIn <strong>the</strong> Russian River, municipal water efficiencyprograms contribute to a more natural flow regime,which is necessary to create more natural habitat <strong>for</strong>endangered coho salmon and threatened steelheadtrout. Achiev<strong>in</strong>g more natural flows requires reduc<strong>in</strong>gwater releases from an upstream dam <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> summer,which must be accompanied by reduced downstreamdiversions <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> summer. Toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se actions canprovide higher flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fall when ano<strong>the</strong>r speciesof salmon, ch<strong>in</strong>ook, is return<strong>in</strong>g. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r,<strong>the</strong>se actions to restore a more natural hydrographrequire significant on-<strong>the</strong>-ground water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts downstream by water users <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>Sonoma County <strong>Water</strong> Agency.Historically, <strong>the</strong> Russian River has been managedwith unnaturally high flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> summer <strong>in</strong> orderto allow <strong>for</strong> water diversions <strong>for</strong> municipal andagricultural uses, as well as to provide recreationalopportunities. But when <strong>the</strong> central Cali<strong>for</strong>nia coastpopulations of coho salmon, steelhead, and ch<strong>in</strong>ooksalmon were listed under <strong>the</strong> ESA (<strong>in</strong> 1996, 1997, and1999, respectively), it became clear that action tocreate a more natural flow regime would be necessaryto protect <strong>the</strong>se imperiled fisheries. Ramp<strong>in</strong>gup more efficient use of municipal and agriculturalwater <strong>in</strong> and around Russian River bas<strong>in</strong> communitiessuch as Santa Rosa (<strong>in</strong> Sonoma County) and Ukiah (<strong>in</strong>Mendoc<strong>in</strong>o County), along with reduc<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>imumsummer <strong>in</strong>stream flow requirements, will help contributeto creat<strong>in</strong>g a more natural flow regime.NOAA Fisheries determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> a 2008 BiologicalOp<strong>in</strong>ion on Russian River coho and steelhead thatsummertime flows should be reduced from as high as185 cfs to 125 cfs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper river, and from as highas 125 cfs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower river, down to 70 cfs. 38 Thesesummertime flow reductions create better habitatconditions <strong>for</strong> coho and steelhead, and also allowmore cool water to be stored beh<strong>in</strong>d an upstreamdam <strong>for</strong> release <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> late summer and early fall <strong>for</strong><strong>the</strong> benefit of adult salmon return<strong>in</strong>g to spawn.Implement<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se flow reductions necessitateschang<strong>in</strong>g a 1986 decision by Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s State <strong>Water</strong>Resources Control Board (State <strong>Water</strong> Board) thatmandated <strong>the</strong> historically higher flows. To accomplishthis, <strong>the</strong> Sonoma County <strong>Water</strong> Agency (SCWA),which is also <strong>the</strong> County Board of Supervisors, is<strong>in</strong>itially seek<strong>in</strong>g permission on a year-to-year basisto manage <strong>the</strong> river at flows below those called <strong>for</strong>by <strong>the</strong> 1986 State <strong>Water</strong> Board decision. After anenvironmental review is completed <strong>in</strong> 2013, SCWAwill be <strong>in</strong> a position to ask <strong>the</strong> State <strong>Water</strong> Board <strong>for</strong>a permanent change to <strong>the</strong> 1986 decision. 3938 http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/rrifr/rrifr%20flier%20flow%20changes%202010%20f<strong>in</strong>al.pdf.39 Id. and personal communication with Pam Jeane, SWCA, Jan.2011. Also http://library.municode.com/<strong>in</strong>dex.aspx?clientID=16484&stateID=5&statename=Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.The State <strong>Water</strong> Board has been supportive of this temporaryreduction <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow requirements through its 2009temporary order.33 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
While obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g permission from <strong>the</strong> State <strong>Water</strong>Board to implement <strong>the</strong> lower flows gets SonomaCounty <strong>Water</strong> Agency and o<strong>the</strong>r Russian River watermanagers over a key adm<strong>in</strong>istrative hurdle, on-<strong>the</strong>groundaction by SCWA is also underway, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mof implement<strong>in</strong>g significant water conservation andefficiency programs. A primary measure to achievethis goal is utiliz<strong>in</strong>g water budgets <strong>for</strong> commercialirrigation with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sonoma County <strong>Water</strong> Agency’sservice area. This primarily affects summer diversions.O<strong>the</strong>r conservation tactics currently employed bySCWA and o<strong>the</strong>r local water managers <strong>in</strong>clude publiceducation campaigns, cash <strong>for</strong> grass replacement,<strong>in</strong>centives to use graywater and harvest ra<strong>in</strong>water,and implementation of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Urban <strong>Water</strong>Conservation Council Best Management <strong>Practice</strong>s. 40The state’s permanent change to <strong>the</strong> 1986 State<strong>Water</strong> Board decision is expected to <strong>in</strong>clude waterconservation and efficiency requirements, whichwould <strong>in</strong>stitutionalize some of <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts.To date, flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> river have more closely reflectednatural levels, but <strong>the</strong>y have not always met <strong>the</strong>levels outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> biological op<strong>in</strong>ion. In 2009, <strong>the</strong>comb<strong>in</strong>ation of water conservation and a droughtallowed <strong>the</strong> Russian River to meet target flows. Awetter year <strong>in</strong> 2010 resulted <strong>in</strong> higher flows thanwere sought under this op<strong>in</strong>ion, but flows werenever<strong>the</strong>less lower than <strong>the</strong>y had been previously.In a separate ef<strong>for</strong>t, local grape growers, <strong>in</strong> responseto w<strong>in</strong>ter low flows, are <strong>in</strong>stitut<strong>in</strong>g frost controlmethods on local v<strong>in</strong>eyards that are less water<strong>in</strong>tensive.While this does not contribute to summer<strong>in</strong>stream flow reductions <strong>for</strong> endangered species,it has some impact on nighttime spr<strong>in</strong>g flows andthrough sudden changes <strong>in</strong> river and tributary flowsmay affect salmon and steelhead. 41 It also illustrateswhat may be possible <strong>in</strong> agricultural water efficiency.NRCS-suggested water efficient practices that protectcrops from frost without impact<strong>in</strong>g salmon habitat<strong>in</strong>clude various types of w<strong>in</strong>d mach<strong>in</strong>es, retrofitt<strong>in</strong>gof spr<strong>in</strong>kler heads, and <strong>in</strong>corporation of on-sitewea<strong>the</strong>r stations to improve tim<strong>in</strong>g and applicationof water.40 http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/watersupply/<strong>Water</strong>_Supply_Strategy_Action_Plan_BOARD_PRESENTATION_SEPTEMBER_2010.pdf.41 Sonoma County W<strong>in</strong>egrape Commission, <strong>Water</strong> Conservation,Frost & Irrigation at http://www.sonomaw<strong>in</strong>egrape.org/frost.Mono Lake, Cali<strong>for</strong>niaIn <strong>the</strong> late 1990’s a municipal water conservationprogram helped save water <strong>for</strong> environmental restoration—<strong>in</strong>this case streams flow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to Mono Lake and<strong>the</strong> Lake itself. In response to a 1994 State <strong>Water</strong> Boardorder to halt water withdrawals and raise lake levels,<strong>the</strong> Los Angeles Department of <strong>Water</strong> and Power, while<strong>in</strong>itially reluctant, implemented a major efficient showerheadand toilet retrofit program. Los Angeles hadalready demonstrated <strong>the</strong> feasibility of reduced shortterm water use (20 percent <strong>in</strong> 1991-92), <strong>in</strong> response todrought conditions. Los Angeles water conservationprograms have reduced long-term water use comparedto early water use projections. Documented watersav<strong>in</strong>gs are available <strong>for</strong> this ef<strong>for</strong>t, which is somewhatunique <strong>in</strong> that it is based on a decision rely<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong>public trust doctr<strong>in</strong>e.Sacramento <strong>Water</strong> Forum Agreement,American River, Cali<strong>for</strong>niaThe American River is prized <strong>for</strong> recreation as well asits fisheries and water supply. This negotiated agreementamong 40 diverse <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> 2000 seeks a wayto ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> more reliable water supplies and sufficient<strong>in</strong>stream flows to protect <strong>the</strong> lower American River andsupport native salmon and steelhead. Municipal waterconservation best management practices and conjunctivemanagement of surface and groundwater are buttwo of seven elements of <strong>the</strong> multifaceted agreement,which also describes diversions and supply projects.While agricultural districts are part of <strong>the</strong> agreement,specific agricultural efficiency measures were not<strong>in</strong>cluded; <strong>for</strong> districts us<strong>in</strong>g federally supplied waterfrom <strong>the</strong> Central Valley Project, different agriculturalefficiency requirements apply, and those us<strong>in</strong>g groundwaterare subject to groundwater provisions of <strong>the</strong>agreement.In <strong>the</strong> ten years s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> agreement was signed, somemunicipalities have put <strong>in</strong> place conservation plans andmeasures. Streamflow levels have been <strong>in</strong>corporatedas part of protections <strong>for</strong> fisheries flows. But <strong>for</strong>malfederal USBR and State <strong>Water</strong> Board approvals have notyet taken place. And sav<strong>in</strong>gs from <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts are notwell documented. Permanent approval would requirere-operat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> federal Folsom Dam on a permanentbasis <strong>for</strong> fisheries flows as well as hydropower andwater supply. A “successor agreement” governs implementationof <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al 30 year pact and ref<strong>in</strong>ementof agreements.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>34
The Legal Sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong>The law—<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of numerous statutes,regulations, ord<strong>in</strong>ances, programs, compacts,contracts, and o<strong>the</strong>r governmental andnon-governmental <strong>in</strong>struments—significantly<strong>in</strong>fluences what can be done with water,when, and where <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. Almostany action will have a unique set of legal considerations,so a case-by-case analysis is nearly <strong>in</strong>evitable<strong>for</strong> any project that seeks to use water conservation 1ef<strong>for</strong>ts to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows.Due <strong>in</strong> large part to <strong>the</strong> federal role <strong>in</strong> damoperations and <strong>the</strong> provision of water, U.S. Bureau ofReclamation and Army Corps of Eng<strong>in</strong>eers regulationsand contracts shape water management <strong>in</strong> manyparts of <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>. Also look<strong>in</strong>g bas<strong>in</strong>-wide, what hascome to be known <strong>in</strong> short-hand as <strong>the</strong> Law of <strong>the</strong>River identifies water allocation to each state, priorityof water usage among certa<strong>in</strong> states, and even waterquality requirements and more. While <strong>the</strong> Law of <strong>the</strong>River primarily addresses <strong>in</strong>terstate water affairs, it<strong>in</strong>fluences what is done <strong>in</strong> each state and can affectconservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts and <strong>in</strong>stream flow protections.State law <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> seven bas<strong>in</strong> states also plays a significantrole as it sets <strong>the</strong> base parameters <strong>for</strong> whatcan and cannot be done with water and what proceduresare required. 2 For all seven bas<strong>in</strong> states, <strong>the</strong>doctr<strong>in</strong>e of prior appropriation is <strong>the</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant, if notexclusive, means of water allocation. 3 In short, priorappropriation is <strong>the</strong> first-come, first-served approach.Traditionally, <strong>the</strong> oldest right is completely fulfilled,<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> next oldest, and so <strong>for</strong>th down <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>euntil <strong>the</strong>re is no water left to allocate. In addition,prior appropriation has two key tenets: <strong>the</strong> no-<strong>in</strong>juryrule, which protects water rights from impairmentby o<strong>the</strong>rs, and <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>for</strong>feiture, commonlyknown as “use it or lose it.” Each state has its own<strong>in</strong>terpretations of, exemptions to, and modificationsof this basic system of allocation, which can and hasresulted <strong>in</strong> widely vary<strong>in</strong>g opportunities betweenstates <strong>for</strong> water conservation, <strong>in</strong>stream flow protection,and comb<strong>in</strong>ations of <strong>the</strong> two. There<strong>for</strong>e, eachstate is addressed <strong>in</strong>dependently below ra<strong>the</strong>r thanas a collective.Importantly, all discussion of us<strong>in</strong>g conserved water<strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposes <strong>in</strong>volves a change of useof an exist<strong>in</strong>g water right, not a new appropriation ofwater. Conserved water comes from an exist<strong>in</strong>g use,and hence an exist<strong>in</strong>g water right, that is requir<strong>in</strong>gless water. So when conserved water is sought to beused <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposes, it is a change <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>purpose and place of use of <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g water rightra<strong>the</strong>r than a new appropriation. This is a significantdist<strong>in</strong>ction because laws often treat new appropriationsdifferently from changes <strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g waterrights, particularly when it comes to <strong>in</strong>stream flow.Federal InfluenceMany federal statutes and regulations affect or have<strong>the</strong> potential to affect water management <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. They can create obstacles toor provide opportunities <strong>for</strong> water conservation and<strong>in</strong>stream flow protection. The Clean <strong>Water</strong> Act establishes<strong>the</strong> primary framework <strong>for</strong> federal, state, andtribal regulation of water quality and has <strong>the</strong> potentialto affect flows through discharge permits andwater quality standards such as aquatic life use. TheEndangered Species Act can affect water uses andmanagement actions that may harm a threatened orendangered species, and its application to federalwater projects has generated serious controversy <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> West. In addition, <strong>the</strong> National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, <strong>Water</strong> ResourcesDevelopment Act, Safe Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Water</strong> Act, and o<strong>the</strong>rfederal laws can have vary<strong>in</strong>g degrees of <strong>in</strong>fluenceon water management decisions.1 The mean<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> terms “water conservation” and “water useefficiency” varies across states and contexts, both legally and <strong>in</strong>practice, so <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>tentionally not def<strong>in</strong>ed here. Identify<strong>in</strong>gwhat does and does not qualify as a water conservation or useefficiency project or program under specific laws is outside <strong>the</strong>scope of this legal summary.2 See, e.g., Charlton H. Bonham, Perspectives from <strong>the</strong> Field: AReview of Western <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> Issues and Recommendations<strong>for</strong> a New <strong>Water</strong> Future, 36 Envtl. L. 1205, 1208 (2006); RuthMa<strong>the</strong>ws, <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> Protection and Restoration: Sett<strong>in</strong>g aNew Compass Po<strong>in</strong>t, 36 Envtl. L. 1311, 1324-5 (2006).35 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and, to alesser extent, <strong>the</strong> Army Corps of Eng<strong>in</strong>eers (Corps)play a more direct role <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> management of water<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. 4 Their water controlprojects result <strong>in</strong> a significant quantity of storedwater, water that can be delivered under contractto certa<strong>in</strong> water users under def<strong>in</strong>ed circumstances.USBR is <strong>the</strong> largest wholesale water supplier <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>country, provid<strong>in</strong>g one out of five western farmerswith irrigation water and part of <strong>the</strong> water supply<strong>for</strong> over 30 million people. 5 USBR’s Lower ColoradoRegion acts as <strong>the</strong> water master <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> ColoradoRiver from Lee Ferry to <strong>the</strong> Mexican border; to useany Colorado River water with<strong>in</strong> that reach requires awater delivery contract with <strong>the</strong> Bureau. 6 As a result,USBR’s participation <strong>in</strong> any water management decisionsis often valuable if not necessary throughout<strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> and particularly <strong>the</strong> lower bas<strong>in</strong>. Importantto note <strong>in</strong> this context, USBR has signaled its <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong> water transfers through a policy explicitly seek<strong>in</strong>gto facilitate temporary and permanent voluntarytransfers of project water from exist<strong>in</strong>g to new usersand uses, pursuant to state and federal law. 7The Corps, by contrast, is more limited <strong>in</strong> its roleas water provider. It can enter <strong>in</strong>to agreements toprovide water <strong>for</strong> municipal and <strong>in</strong>dustrial uses whenit would not adversely affect <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g uses of thatwater. 8 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>in</strong> reservoirs operated by <strong>the</strong> Corpsmay be used <strong>for</strong> irrigation purposes if <strong>the</strong> Secretaryof <strong>the</strong> Interior recommends and <strong>the</strong> Secretary of <strong>the</strong>Army determ<strong>in</strong>es that such is warranted. 9 The Corpsmay be a relevant party depend<strong>in</strong>g on where <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed activity is located.In addition, <strong>the</strong> federal government owns a significantportion of land <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>.Where <strong>the</strong> federal government has designatedcerta<strong>in</strong> lands <strong>for</strong> a specific purpose, those landsmay have a right under federal law to receive <strong>the</strong>m<strong>in</strong>imum quantity of water needed to fulfill thatpurpose. 10 Such “reserved rights” are usually determ<strong>in</strong>ed<strong>in</strong> state courts, however, and are generallynot recognized or protected until <strong>the</strong>y have beenjudicially confirmed.Also of note, <strong>the</strong> United States Supreme Court hasorig<strong>in</strong>al jurisdiction over controversies <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>gtwo or more states, 11 mean<strong>in</strong>g that it plays animportant role <strong>in</strong> this arena by be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al arbiterof <strong>in</strong>terstate water allocation and compact disputes.Its recent decision <strong>in</strong> Montana v. Wyom<strong>in</strong>g, 131 S.Ct.1765 (2011) may <strong>in</strong>fluence water conservation as <strong>the</strong>Court held that <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e of prior appropriation <strong>in</strong>Montana and Wyom<strong>in</strong>g allows water right holders tomake <strong>the</strong>ir irrigation systems more efficient (through<strong>in</strong>stallation of spr<strong>in</strong>klers), even to <strong>the</strong> detriment ofdownstream water users. The analysis of this decisionand <strong>in</strong>fluence of <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court suggests that asimilar result could occur <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r states.3 David H. Getches, <strong>Water</strong> Law <strong>in</strong> a Nutshell, 7-8 (2009).4 See, e.g., A. Dan Tarlock, The Future of Prior Appropriation <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> New West, 41 Nat. Resources J. 769 (2001).5 http://www.usbr.gov/ma<strong>in</strong>/about/fact.html.6 See Boulder Canyon Project Act, 43 U.S.C. § 617.7 See 2001 Bureau of Reclamation Policy on Voluntary Transfersof Project <strong>Water</strong>, http://www.usbr.gov/recman/wtr/wtr-p02.pdf.8 33 U.S.C. § 708.9 Id. § 390.10 See, e.g., United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978).11 U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>36
Law of <strong>the</strong> RiverA series of laws, agreements, and court decisionsover <strong>the</strong> course of many decades comprise <strong>the</strong> Lawof <strong>the</strong> River. The Colorado River Compact dividedwater between <strong>the</strong> upper and lower bas<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>the</strong>river. 12 The Boulder Canyon Project Act apportioned7.5 million acre feet (MAF) per year among <strong>the</strong> threelower bas<strong>in</strong> states, 13 and <strong>the</strong> Upper Colorado RiverBas<strong>in</strong> Compact did <strong>the</strong> same <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper bas<strong>in</strong>states. 14 The Mexican <strong>Water</strong> Treaty of 1944 guaranteed1.5 MAF per year to Mexico, 15 and M<strong>in</strong>ute 242of <strong>the</strong> U.S.-Mexico International Boundary and <strong>Water</strong>Commission of 1973 set sal<strong>in</strong>ity requirements <strong>for</strong>those deliveries to Mexico. 16 The Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong>Project Act authorized <strong>the</strong> construction of <strong>the</strong> CentralArizona Project and prioritized Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s rights toColorado River water over those used by <strong>the</strong> CentralArizona Project. 17 More recently, <strong>the</strong> Department of<strong>the</strong> Interior authorized <strong>in</strong>terim operational guidel<strong>in</strong>es<strong>for</strong> Lake Powell and Lake Mead dur<strong>in</strong>g drought andlow reservoir conditions, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g agreed-upondelivery reductions <strong>for</strong> Nevada and Arizona <strong>in</strong> yearsthat Lake Mead is projected to be at or below certa<strong>in</strong>water levels. 18These and o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of <strong>the</strong> Law of <strong>the</strong> River createmuch of <strong>the</strong> overarch<strong>in</strong>g structure <strong>for</strong> water-basedrelations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>, but <strong>the</strong>ir impacton water conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts is not necessarily director always evident. The threat of a compact call, effectivelya demand by <strong>the</strong> lower bas<strong>in</strong> states of <strong>the</strong> waterdue to <strong>the</strong>m under <strong>the</strong> Colorado River Compact, has<strong>the</strong> potential to encourage water conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper bas<strong>in</strong> because it could help with wea<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>ga call. Also, with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g potential <strong>for</strong> acall, new appropriations of Colorado River water arenot as secure as once thought; conservation can bea more reliable approach to meet<strong>in</strong>g new demands.Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, as rights <strong>in</strong> stored water <strong>in</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> reservoirsbecome more quantifiable and transferable,year to year and party to party, water bank<strong>in</strong>g andtransactions may add more <strong>in</strong>centive to conserve.The opportunities <strong>for</strong> and obstacles to water conservationfrom <strong>the</strong> Law of <strong>the</strong> River extend beyond<strong>the</strong>se few examples and are likely to change <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>com<strong>in</strong>g decades.The effect of <strong>the</strong> Law of <strong>the</strong> River on <strong>in</strong>stream flowprotection, however, is more evident and generallygrimmer. Quantify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> water rights of each state<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> has led to a mentality of keep<strong>in</strong>g thatfull allocation <strong>in</strong>-state unless <strong>for</strong>ced to give it up, <strong>for</strong>example through a compact call. The fact that <strong>the</strong>largest demand <strong>for</strong> Colorado River water is <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>lower bas<strong>in</strong> has only added to this protectionism;some believe <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights are a potential tool<strong>for</strong> lower bas<strong>in</strong> states to draw more water from upperbas<strong>in</strong> states.In this ve<strong>in</strong>, several states have enacted geographiclimits to <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights, and two states explicitlyreference compact rights. In Colorado, <strong>in</strong>streamflow rights and recreational <strong>in</strong>-channel diversionsare prohibited from prevent<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> full developmentand consumptive beneficial use of waters availableby law and <strong>in</strong>terstate compact. 19 In Wyom<strong>in</strong>g,<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights are prohibited from caus<strong>in</strong>gmore water to leave <strong>the</strong> state than is allocated by<strong>in</strong>terstate compact <strong>for</strong> downstream uses, and anyonemay divert and appropriate <strong>in</strong>stream flow waters<strong>for</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r purpose with<strong>in</strong> one mile upstream from<strong>the</strong> Wyom<strong>in</strong>g state l<strong>in</strong>e. 20 This mentality and <strong>the</strong>limitations on <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights add even moreobstacles to ma<strong>in</strong>stem, bas<strong>in</strong>-wide <strong>in</strong>stream flowprotection and restoration ef<strong>for</strong>ts and suggest thatflow projects may have a greater likelihood of successwhen conf<strong>in</strong>ed with<strong>in</strong> a state.The Law of <strong>the</strong> River has so many pieces that itspresent and potential <strong>in</strong>fluence on water conservation<strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposes is hard to determ<strong>in</strong>e<strong>in</strong> all <strong>in</strong>stances and <strong>in</strong> all areas of <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>. But at<strong>the</strong> most basic level, <strong>the</strong> allocation of water amongstates and sett<strong>in</strong>g of priorities <strong>for</strong> delivery appearsto challenge more than assist multi-state and bas<strong>in</strong>wide<strong>in</strong>stream flow ef<strong>for</strong>ts regardless of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>source is water conservation.12 Colorado River Compact, Nov. 24, 1922, art. 3.13 43 U.S.C. § 617c(a).14 Upper Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong> Compact, Oct. 11, 1948, art. 3.Arizona is both an upper and lower bas<strong>in</strong> state.15 Utilization of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Water</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> Colorado and Tijuana Riversand of <strong>the</strong> Rio Grande: Treaty between <strong>the</strong> United States ofAmerica and Mexico, Feb. 3, 1944, art. 10.16 Permanent and Def<strong>in</strong>itive Solution to <strong>the</strong> InternationalProblem of <strong>the</strong> Sal<strong>in</strong>ity of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River, InternationalBoundary and <strong>Water</strong> Commission, United States and Mexico,M<strong>in</strong>ute No. 242, Aug. 30, 1973.17 43 U.S.C. § 1521.18 Record of Decision: Colorado River Interim Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong>Lower Bas<strong>in</strong> Shortages and <strong>the</strong> Coord<strong>in</strong>ated Operations <strong>for</strong>Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Dec. 13, 2007, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf.19 Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-92-102(3), 37-92-305(13)(c).20 Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-3-1002(d), 41-3-1006(h).37 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
State LawSummary of Colorado Bas<strong>in</strong> State Law Relevant to <strong>Water</strong> Conservation and <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>Can <strong>the</strong> purpose and place of use of conserved water be changed?From agricultural rights?From o<strong>the</strong>r rights?Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Yes YesNevada No [No express prohibition/permission]Colorado [No express prohibition/permission] [No express prohibition/permission]Utah No [No express prohibition/permission]Arizona [No express prohibition/permission] [No express prohibition/permission]New Mexico Yes [No express prohibition/permission]Wyom<strong>in</strong>g No NoCan an exist<strong>in</strong>g water right be changedto an <strong>in</strong>stream flow (ISF) right?Can conserved water be protected from<strong>for</strong>feiture/abandonment?Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Yes Yes, it is equivalent to a beneficial useNevada Yes N/A—no <strong>for</strong>feiture <strong>for</strong> surface water rightsColorado Yes, by or transferred to <strong>the</strong> state Yes, participate <strong>in</strong> conservation programUtah Yes, by or to state or fish organization Yes, nonuse exemption <strong>for</strong> up to 7 yearsArizona Yes Potentially, but <strong>for</strong>feiture is not en<strong>for</strong>cedNew MexicoYes, at least by or to <strong>the</strong> InterstateStream CommissionWyom<strong>in</strong>g Yes, by or transferred to <strong>the</strong> state NoYes, participate <strong>in</strong> conservation program;ag conservation equals beneficial useWho holds rights changedto <strong>in</strong>stream flow?For how long?For what reasons?Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Anyone Temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>iteNevada Anyone Temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>iteColoradoUtahColorado <strong>Water</strong> ConservationBoard (CWCB)— a localgovernment entity mayhold recreational <strong>in</strong>-channeldiversions (RICDs)Divisions of Wildlife Resourcesand Parks and Recreation and501(c)(3) fish<strong>in</strong>g organizationsTemporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>iteState agencies: <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>itelyor <strong>for</strong> 1 year or less; fish<strong>in</strong>gorg: longer than 1 year butnot more than 10Wetlands habitat, fish andwildlife, or recreationAny recreational purpose,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g wildlifePreserve or improve <strong>the</strong>natural environment to areasonable degreeState agencies: many reasons;fish org: protection orrestorwation of habitat <strong>for</strong> 3species of troutArizonaOnly <strong>the</strong> state may hold<strong>in</strong>stream flow (ISF) rightsreta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> priority dateIndef<strong>in</strong>itely if transferred to<strong>the</strong> stateRecreation, wildlife, or fishpurposeNew Mexico Anyone Undef<strong>in</strong>ed Fish and wildlife, recreationWyom<strong>in</strong>g The state Indef<strong>in</strong>itely Fisheries<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>38
Cali<strong>for</strong>niaCali<strong>for</strong>nia water law generally is favorable <strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>gwater conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows. Awater right holder can protect conserved water from<strong>for</strong>feiture and use that water <strong>for</strong> a new purpose and <strong>in</strong>a new place, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stream. A water right holdercan transfer <strong>the</strong> right to conserved water but is notrequired to <strong>in</strong> order to create an <strong>in</strong>stream flow right.Unlike many states <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>, anyone can hold an<strong>in</strong>stream flow right <strong>in</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>nia. The change of a rightto <strong>in</strong>stream flow may be temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite, and<strong>the</strong>re are expedited review procedures <strong>for</strong> shortertermchanges, mak<strong>in</strong>g response to environmentalneeds easier.A conventional obstacle to water conservation <strong>in</strong> priorappropriation states, <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>for</strong>feiture allows<strong>the</strong> state to take back a water right or portion <strong>the</strong>reofif it is unused <strong>for</strong> a set number of years, which <strong>in</strong>Cali<strong>for</strong>nia is five. 21 As <strong>in</strong> most bas<strong>in</strong> states, Cali<strong>for</strong>niahas made a statutory exception <strong>for</strong> water unused dueto conservation; specifically, <strong>the</strong> reduced water usagefrom conservation measures is deemed equivalent tobeneficial use. 22 To secure this exception, <strong>the</strong> rightholder need only note <strong>the</strong> amount of water conservedon periodic report<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>ms. Separately, anyoneentitled to water from <strong>the</strong> Colorado River undercontracts with <strong>the</strong> United States and undertakes awater conservation ef<strong>for</strong>t that results <strong>in</strong> reduced useof Colorado River water with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Imperial IrrigationDistrict is protected from <strong>for</strong>feiture <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> amountconserved. The <strong>for</strong>feiture exceptions would allow <strong>the</strong>amount of water conserved simply to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>streamwithout repercussions to <strong>the</strong> water right. Also, conservationdownstream to allow <strong>for</strong> lower, more naturalflows dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> late summer, as seen <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> RussianRiver example, can avoid permanent impact on waterrights through <strong>the</strong> exceptions.But Cali<strong>for</strong>nia water law goes fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong> pav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>way <strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>streamflows. A water right holder may change <strong>the</strong> purposeof use, place of use, and po<strong>in</strong>t of diversion and eventransfer <strong>the</strong> conserved portion of a water right. 23 Awater right can be changed “<strong>for</strong> purposes of preserv<strong>in</strong>gor enhanc<strong>in</strong>g wetlands habitat, fish and wildliferesources, or recreation <strong>in</strong>, or on, <strong>the</strong> water.” 24 InCali<strong>for</strong>nia, anyone may petition <strong>for</strong> and hold such<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights. 25 Thus, a water right holdercould change <strong>the</strong> purpose of conserved water to<strong>in</strong>stream flow and hold <strong>the</strong> right herself, transfer <strong>the</strong>conserved water to an environmental organizationwhich would <strong>the</strong>n change <strong>the</strong> purpose of use to<strong>in</strong>stream flow, or any number of o<strong>the</strong>r permutations.Chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> purpose of use of a water right to<strong>in</strong>stream flow can be temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite butrequires <strong>the</strong> permission of <strong>the</strong> State <strong>Water</strong> ResourcesControl Board <strong>in</strong> any event. 26 There are <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mationalhurdles <strong>in</strong> this process. The standard petition <strong>for</strong> achange requires all <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation that is reasonablyavailable to <strong>the</strong> petitioner or from <strong>the</strong> Departmentof Fish and Game regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> potential effect of<strong>the</strong> change on fish and wildlife. 27 Specifically <strong>for</strong>change petitions to <strong>in</strong>stream flow, <strong>the</strong> petition muststate <strong>the</strong> time, location, and scope of <strong>the</strong> change. 28The state also has expedited reviews <strong>for</strong> temporaryurgency changes, which expire with<strong>in</strong> 180 days andare subject at all times to revocation by <strong>the</strong> board, 29and temporary changes associated with a transfer <strong>for</strong>a period of one year or less. 30 These options have <strong>the</strong>potential to allow faster response to environmentalneeds, conserv<strong>in</strong>g water and quickly putt<strong>in</strong>g it to an<strong>in</strong>stream purpose when it is most needed.Cali<strong>for</strong>nia not only offers <strong>the</strong> opportunity to protectconserved water from <strong>for</strong>feiture, but to change <strong>the</strong>purpose of its use to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flow, establish<strong>in</strong>ga temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite dedication of water to<strong>the</strong> stream that can be protected under state lawfrom downstream users. In addition, <strong>the</strong> State <strong>Water</strong>Resources Control Board has a liberal view of waterconservation, determ<strong>in</strong>ed by reductions <strong>in</strong> withdrawals,generally result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> more water be<strong>in</strong>g deemedconserved than under a consumptive use analysis.<strong>Water</strong> conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state have prevented<strong>the</strong> need to appropriate new water <strong>in</strong> many<strong>in</strong>stances, despite grow<strong>in</strong>g demand. But relatively fewwater conservation projects have made water available<strong>for</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r purpose, and <strong>in</strong> only roughly twenty<strong>in</strong>stances has <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r purpose <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong>streamflows. <strong>Water</strong> right transfers <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposeshave tended to be from stored water or <strong>for</strong>egoneuse ra<strong>the</strong>r than water conservation. Thus, while <strong>the</strong>groundwork appears to be laid, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tersection ofwater conservation and <strong>in</strong>stream flows is largelyuncharted territory.21 Cal. <strong>Water</strong> Code § 1241.22 Id. § 1011(a).23 Id. § 1011(b).24 Id. § 1707(a)(1).25 Id.26 See, e.g., id. §§ 1701, 1707. Exception: A pre-1914 water right canbe changed to <strong>in</strong>stream flow without <strong>the</strong> necessity of State<strong>Water</strong> Board approval if <strong>the</strong>re is a diversion of water <strong>in</strong>volved.27 Id. § 1701.2(c).28 Id. § 1707(a)(2).29 Id. § 1440.30 Id. § 1728.39 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
NevadaNevada water law has several key attributes favorableto us<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>streamflows, but a few substantial hurdles exist <strong>in</strong> practice.On <strong>the</strong> plus side, <strong>for</strong>feiture is not an issue <strong>for</strong> surfacewater rights, <strong>the</strong> manner of use of a water rightcan be changed to <strong>in</strong>stream flow, changes may betemporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite, anyone can hold an <strong>in</strong>streamflow right, and credits are given <strong>for</strong> non-agriculturalwater conservation. However, conserved agriculturalwater cannot presently be put to a new use ormarketed; no one has ever requested that creditsbe used to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flow; and given <strong>the</strong>significant demand <strong>for</strong> water <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state, <strong>the</strong>re islittle practical opportunity <strong>for</strong> water conservation tobenefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River or itstributaries <strong>in</strong> Nevada.In 1999, Nevada explicitly rejected <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>feituredoctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>for</strong> surface water. 31 There<strong>for</strong>e, nonuse of asurface water right <strong>for</strong> any reason, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g waterconservation, is allowed without risk of <strong>for</strong>feitureto <strong>the</strong> right. Nevada does still have an abandonmentstatute, but <strong>in</strong>tent to abandon is very hard toprove. 32 At least <strong>the</strong>oretically, <strong>the</strong> amount of waterconserved simply could rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream, or conservationdownstream could allow <strong>for</strong> more naturalflows, all without long-term legal implications.<strong>Water</strong> left <strong>in</strong>stream, however, is not protected fromuse by o<strong>the</strong>rs without chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> manner of useto <strong>in</strong>stream flow or establish<strong>in</strong>g private agreementswith those downstream. The use of water <strong>for</strong> anyrecreational purpose, which <strong>in</strong>cludes wildlife water<strong>in</strong>g,is a beneficial use and such a water right canbe held by anyone. 33 In practice, those who dohold such rights vary tremendously, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g waterpurveyors, tribes, government entities, and o<strong>the</strong>rs.In addition, <strong>the</strong>se water rights <strong>for</strong> “recreation” arenot dist<strong>in</strong>guished much from o<strong>the</strong>r rights <strong>in</strong> Nevadawater law, so <strong>the</strong> rules have been applied equally to<strong>the</strong>m. A water right holder can change <strong>the</strong> manner ofuse of an exist<strong>in</strong>g water right to “recreation,” but <strong>the</strong>State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer must first approve it. 34 Such changescan be temporary or <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite. The State Eng<strong>in</strong>eermay expeditiously approve a temporary change,which does not exceed one year, if <strong>the</strong> change is <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> public <strong>in</strong>terest and does not conflict with exist<strong>in</strong>gwater rights of o<strong>the</strong>rs. 35 The State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer has processedmany of <strong>the</strong>se temporary changes <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>streamflow. Thus, <strong>the</strong> manner of use of a water right may bechanged to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flow, <strong>the</strong> process can berelatively quick to respond to short-term demands,and <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al water right holder can reta<strong>in</strong> thoserights throughout <strong>the</strong> process.With so many of <strong>the</strong> pieces <strong>in</strong> place to secure<strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits from water conservation,Nevada’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of water conservation and<strong>the</strong> practicalities of demand appear to be <strong>the</strong> limit<strong>in</strong>gfactors. The Office of <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer haslong held that chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> manner or place ofuse or transferr<strong>in</strong>g a portion of a water right that isno longer needed <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al purpose due toimproved water use efficiency is an expansion of <strong>the</strong>right and thus prohibited. For example, a farmer isentitled only to <strong>the</strong> amount of water needed to grow<strong>the</strong> crop, even with a change of crop or improvement<strong>in</strong> irrigation. The state is consider<strong>in</strong>g modificationsto this approach <strong>for</strong> purposes of promot<strong>in</strong>g waterconservation, but <strong>the</strong> focus to this po<strong>in</strong>t has beenon allow<strong>in</strong>g greater acreage to be irrigated, not flowor o<strong>the</strong>r benefits, when switch<strong>in</strong>g to a more efficientcrop. The State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer does allow non-agriculturalwater purveyors to receive a credit <strong>for</strong> water conservation,and <strong>the</strong> credits have, <strong>for</strong> example, been usedto develop additional lots. No one has ever requestedthat credits be used to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flow. Forpurposes of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong>state, <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g municipal demand has been driv<strong>in</strong>ga variety of water conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts and wouldcompete with environmental demands <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> quantityand tim<strong>in</strong>g of delivery of conserved water.31 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.060(2).32 See id. § 533.060(4).33 Id. § 533.030; Nevada v. Morros, 766 P.2d 263, 267 (Nev. 1988).34 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.325.35 Id. § 533.345.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>40
ColoradoLike Nevada, Colorado has a number of laws favorableto us<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>streamflow but also significant hurdles to such an end, not<strong>the</strong> least of which is <strong>the</strong> state’s view of conservation.Colorado has water conservation and <strong>in</strong>stream flowprotection exemptions to its abandonment statute.Only <strong>the</strong> state may hold <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights, butleases to <strong>the</strong> state <strong>for</strong> that purpose are allowed, andmany entities can hold recreational <strong>in</strong>-channel diversions,which are similar to <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights. Also,expedited review procedures are available <strong>for</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>temporary transfers. There are, however, numerouslimitations on <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights and recreational<strong>in</strong>-channel diversions as well as relatively rigorousprocedural requirements <strong>for</strong> establish<strong>in</strong>g such rights.Perhaps most importantly, Colorado arguably is moreprotective of exist<strong>in</strong>g water rights <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> review ofchange applications than o<strong>the</strong>r Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>states. While healthy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> long-term susta<strong>in</strong>abilityof <strong>the</strong> water management system, this policy doescreate more of a burden be<strong>for</strong>e conserved water canbe used <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r purposes and <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r places andultimately a narrower view of what constitutes waterconservation.Colorado does not have a <strong>for</strong>feiture statute. Thestate’s abandonment statute, however, has a provisionthat serves effectively <strong>the</strong> same role. Failure touse all or a portion of a water right <strong>for</strong> a beneficialpurpose <strong>for</strong> ten years or more creates a rebuttablepresumption of abandonment of a water right <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>amount of water unused. 36 As with <strong>for</strong>feiture <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rstates, Colorado has exemptions to abandonment.Exemptions relevant to <strong>the</strong> topic at hand <strong>in</strong>cludenonuse of a water right that is a result of participation<strong>in</strong> a water conservation program ei<strong>the</strong>r establishedby a municipality or municipal water supplier orapproved by a state agency, a water conservationdistrict, or a water conservancy district. 37 These provisionslargely have been unused to date, so exactlywhat would and would not qualify as a “water conservationprogram” is unclear. But <strong>for</strong> anyth<strong>in</strong>g that doesqualify, <strong>the</strong> result<strong>in</strong>g amount of water could rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>stream, or conservation downstream could allow<strong>for</strong> more natural flows, without risk<strong>in</strong>g loss of thatportion of <strong>the</strong> right, at least <strong>the</strong>oretically. In addition,a loan of water to <strong>the</strong> Colorado <strong>Water</strong> ConservationBoard (CWCB) <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow use exempts <strong>the</strong>water right from abandonment. 38The CWCB is <strong>the</strong> only entity <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> state that isallowed to hold <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights, but it canacquire <strong>the</strong>se rights <strong>in</strong> many ways, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g by purchase,donation, lease, exchange, or o<strong>the</strong>r contractualagreement, from or with any person. 39 Leases may be<strong>for</strong> long or short periods, and <strong>the</strong>re are even special,expedited review procedures <strong>for</strong> leases to <strong>the</strong> CWCBthat can be exercised <strong>for</strong> no more than 120 days and3 times <strong>in</strong> a 10-year period to fulfill <strong>in</strong>stream flowrights held by <strong>the</strong> CWCB. 40 The leas<strong>in</strong>g laws aredesigned to prevent permanent dry-up scenarios,and <strong>the</strong>y allow water right holders o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong>CWCB to work to protect <strong>in</strong>stream flows without permanentdedication of a water right. Flexibility andexpediency <strong>in</strong> transfers are also supported by temporaryreview procedures <strong>for</strong> changes to water rightsand <strong>in</strong>terruptible water supply agreements, where<strong>the</strong> borrower can exercise <strong>the</strong> option to use <strong>the</strong> loaner’swater right <strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>the</strong> agreement. 41While not considered <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights, and thusnot violat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> law allow<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>the</strong> CWCB to holdsuch rights, recreational <strong>in</strong>-channel diversions (RICDs)have a similar end but can be held by o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>terests.The purpose of RICDs is to benefit non-motorizedboat<strong>in</strong>g. 42 A county, municipality, water district,water and sanitation district, or water conservationor conservancy district may appropriate or change36 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-402(11).37 Id. § 37-92-103.38 Id.39 Id. § 37-92-102(3).40 Id. § 37-83-105(2)(a).41 Id. §§ 37-92-308, 37-92-309.42 Id. § 37-92-103(10.1).41 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
<strong>the</strong> purpose and place of use of a right to RICD. 43RICDs potentially offer ano<strong>the</strong>r opportunity to useconserved water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow purposes, althoughnot directly <strong>for</strong> environmental benefit.Chang<strong>in</strong>g a water right’s decreed use to ei<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>stream flow or a RICD <strong>in</strong>volves procedural hurdlesand is limited <strong>in</strong> a number of ways. As noted above,<strong>in</strong>stream flows may not deprive and RICDs may notimpair <strong>the</strong> development and consumptive beneficialuse of Colorado’s compact entitlements. 44 Conditionalwater rights cannot be changed to <strong>in</strong>stream flow orRICD rights. 45 Acquired rights changed to <strong>in</strong>streamflow are restricted to <strong>the</strong> amount appropriate “topreserve or improve <strong>the</strong> natural environment to areasonable degree,” as determ<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> CWCB. 46 Awater right donation to <strong>the</strong> CWCB is prohibited if itwould require <strong>the</strong> removal of <strong>in</strong>frastructure withoutconsent of <strong>the</strong> owner. 47 The CWCB must requestrecommendations from <strong>the</strong> Division of Wildlife and<strong>the</strong> Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation as wellas from <strong>the</strong> U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.Department of <strong>the</strong> Interior be<strong>for</strong>e start<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>streamflow acquisition. 48 RICDs are limited to specific po<strong>in</strong>tsdef<strong>in</strong>ed by control structures, <strong>the</strong> “reach of streamthat is appropriate,” and April 1 to Labor Day of eachyear. 49 For any RICD, <strong>the</strong> CWCB must make writtenf<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs as to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> RICD would <strong>in</strong>jure <strong>in</strong>streamflow rights or impair development of compact entitlementsand if it would promote maximum utilization ofwaters of <strong>the</strong> state. 50 And <strong>the</strong>re is much more to <strong>the</strong>various procedures than can be noted here, result<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> complex water right change processes.In addition to <strong>the</strong>se obstacles, <strong>the</strong> major challenge tous<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flowsis from Colorado’s view of water conservation. 51Colorado seeks to ensure that be<strong>for</strong>e any changes towater rights are made those changes will not <strong>in</strong>jure<strong>the</strong> water rights of o<strong>the</strong>rs. Such is <strong>the</strong> reason <strong>for</strong>extensive procedures <strong>for</strong> changes. It also results <strong>in</strong>a fear of be<strong>in</strong>g too liberal with regard to what onecan do with conserved water, under <strong>the</strong> premise that“conservation” may not actually be a reduction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>consumptive use (effectively <strong>the</strong> amount of waterremoved from <strong>the</strong> river m<strong>in</strong>us <strong>the</strong> amount returned).If a water right holder can o<strong>the</strong>rwise use or sellconserved water, he or she may be able to expand <strong>the</strong>water right and as a result leave less water <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.Prohibit<strong>in</strong>g, or at least be<strong>in</strong>g very careful with, suchuses of conserved water gives greater assurance thato<strong>the</strong>rs will not be harmed. That is why, to this po<strong>in</strong>t,Colorado rarely has allowed conserved water to beused elsewhere and o<strong>the</strong>rwise. With developments <strong>in</strong>quantify<strong>in</strong>g water usage and return flows, however,it may be easier <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> state to upholdits protections of o<strong>the</strong>r water rights while loosen<strong>in</strong>gits policies with regard to us<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>for</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r purposes, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flows. Indeed,<strong>the</strong> state presently is <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g means of accomplish<strong>in</strong>gthis end.43 Id. § 37-92-103(10.3).44 Id. § 37-92-305(13)(c).45 Id. §§ 37-92-102(3)(c.5), 37-92-305(14).46 Id. §§ 37-92-102(3), 37-92-103 (4).47 Id. § 37-92-102(3).48 Id.49 Id. §§ 37-92-103 (10.3), 37-92-305 (13)(a).50 Id. § 37-92-102(6).51 See, e.g., Jesse A. Boyd, Hip Deep: A Survey of State <strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong> Law from <strong>the</strong> Rocky Mounta<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> Pacific Ocean,43 Nat. Resources J. 1151, 1172 (2003).<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>42
UtahUtah has a few of <strong>the</strong> key pieces of law <strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>gwater conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows but alsosignificant hurdles to connect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> two ef<strong>for</strong>ts andensur<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> water rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>stream. Nonuseof water may be approved <strong>for</strong> up to seven years ata time if occurr<strong>in</strong>g because of water conservationpractices. 52 Fish<strong>in</strong>g organizations as well as certa<strong>in</strong>state agencies may change exist<strong>in</strong>g water rightsto <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights and hold those rights oncechanged, but only a state agency may permanentlychange a right <strong>for</strong> this purpose. 53 Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong>state agencies have more options of <strong>in</strong>stream flowuses, fewer adm<strong>in</strong>istrative hurdles to chang<strong>in</strong>g a rightto an <strong>in</strong>stream flow use, and fewer restrictions on<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights than do fish<strong>in</strong>g organizations.Like Nevada and Colorado, perhaps <strong>the</strong> largest obstacleto us<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>streamflows is restriction on chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> purpose of use ofconserved water.Utah has <strong>for</strong>feiture exemptions like those found <strong>in</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r states, but none are particularly relevant to substantialwater conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts. For small improvements,<strong>the</strong> unused portion of <strong>the</strong> right is exemptedif “substantially all” of <strong>the</strong> right is used with<strong>in</strong> aseven-year period. 54 For larger water conservationef<strong>for</strong>ts, an exemption does not naturally attach given<strong>the</strong> activity, but an alternative does exist <strong>in</strong> Utah law.The State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer can exempt <strong>for</strong> up to seven yearsat a time <strong>the</strong> nonuse of all or a portion of a waterright <strong>for</strong>, among o<strong>the</strong>r reasons, water conservationor efficiency practices. 55 To secure this protection, aright holder must submit a nonuse application be<strong>for</strong>ea seven-year cont<strong>in</strong>uous period of nonuse is reached.While a more complex process, this protection of awater right still allows <strong>the</strong> possibility of more waterrema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stream or creat<strong>in</strong>g more natural flowsthrough downstream conservation, all without threatto <strong>the</strong> water right. But because a right holder hasno authority to call water that will not be used, thatwater is available to <strong>the</strong> next appropriator <strong>in</strong> prioritywhe<strong>the</strong>r upstream or down; it may reach and flowpast <strong>the</strong> current po<strong>in</strong>t of diversion, but <strong>the</strong>re is noguarantee. In addition, water left unused <strong>in</strong> a stream,and not called <strong>for</strong> by o<strong>the</strong>r water right holders, isavailable <strong>for</strong> appropriation. 56<strong>Instream</strong> flows are only protected from use by o<strong>the</strong>rsby chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> purpose of use to <strong>in</strong>stream flow.Utah allows <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights to be held by twostate agencies as well as fish<strong>in</strong>g organizations. Whilenot af<strong>for</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g quite <strong>the</strong> flexibility <strong>for</strong> connect<strong>in</strong>gwater conservation and <strong>in</strong>stream flows that allow<strong>in</strong>ganyone to hold <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights does, it is animprovement over vest<strong>in</strong>g such rights <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>glestate entity. The Division of Wildlife Resources andDivision of Parks and Recreation may hold <strong>in</strong>streamflow rights <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> propagation of fish, public recreation,or preservation or enhancement of <strong>the</strong> streamenvironment. 57 A 501(c)(3) fish<strong>in</strong>g organization mayhold a limited <strong>in</strong>stream flow right <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> protectionor restoration of habitat <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bonneville, ColoradoRiver, or Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 58As <strong>in</strong> Colorado, <strong>the</strong>re are many procedures relevantto chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> purpose of a water right to <strong>in</strong>streamflow. All change applications <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow rightsmust be submitted to <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer and <strong>in</strong>cludestudies, reports, or o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation required <strong>for</strong>demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> need <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow and<strong>the</strong> projected benefits to <strong>the</strong> public. 59 Fish<strong>in</strong>g organizationsalso must have <strong>the</strong> director of <strong>the</strong> Divisionof Wildlife Resources approve <strong>the</strong> change, which<strong>in</strong>cludes a number of additional requirements. Theseprocedures mean fewer rivers and streams on which<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights can be sought and more work toachieve what is possible.Utah also explicitly limits certa<strong>in</strong> aspects of <strong>in</strong>streamflow rights. The two state agencies may only changea water right to <strong>in</strong>stream flow permanently or <strong>for</strong> oneyear or less. 60 A fish<strong>in</strong>g organization may only do so<strong>for</strong> a fixed time longer than one year but not morethan 10 years. 61 Perhaps most important <strong>for</strong> purposesof us<strong>in</strong>g water conservation to support <strong>in</strong>streamflows, <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights that can be held by fish<strong>in</strong>gorganizations are geographically limited to <strong>the</strong>section of stream between <strong>the</strong> water right’s orig<strong>in</strong>alpo<strong>in</strong>t of diversion and <strong>the</strong> next po<strong>in</strong>t of diversionmade by ano<strong>the</strong>r person. 62 <strong>Instream</strong> flows held by <strong>the</strong>state agencies are not so geographically restricted,but <strong>the</strong> water right would need to be donated to <strong>the</strong>state, 63 which likely reduces <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>centive to pursuethat option.52 Utah Code Ann. § 73-1-4.53 Id. § 73-3-30.54 Id. § 73-1-4(2)(e).55 Id. § 73-1-4(4).56 See id. § 73-3-8.57 Id. § 73-3-30(2)(a).58 Id. § 73-3-30(3)(a).59 Id. § 73-3-30(4)(b)60 Id. § 73-3-30(2)(a).61 Id. § 73-3-30(3)(a).62 Id. § 73-3-30(3)(c).63 Id. § 73-3-30(2)(c).43 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
The most significant limitation to us<strong>in</strong>g water conservationto benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> Utah is how <strong>the</strong>state <strong>in</strong>terprets water rights. In Utah an agriculturalwater right is based solely on <strong>the</strong> amount of land.In <strong>the</strong> eyes of <strong>the</strong> state, if a farmer gets by with alot less water due to improved irrigation, a change<strong>in</strong> crop, or some o<strong>the</strong>r means, he or she has notlessened actual usage and thus has no “extra” waterto change to an <strong>in</strong>stream flow use. While this hurdleappears to apply only to agricultural water rights,<strong>the</strong> vast majority of water from <strong>the</strong> Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong> used <strong>in</strong> Utah is put toward agricultural production.<strong>Water</strong> conservation from municipal, <strong>in</strong>dustrial,and o<strong>the</strong>r water users may be of some support, buto<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong> connection of water conservation toColorado River and tributary flows is left to stateapproved<strong>for</strong>feiture exemptions <strong>for</strong> water conservationand <strong>the</strong> hope that <strong>the</strong> water is not diverted andused by o<strong>the</strong>rs.ArizonaMuch of <strong>the</strong> law important to facilitate <strong>the</strong> connectionbetween water conservation and <strong>in</strong>stream flowsand secur<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights is lack<strong>in</strong>g orm<strong>in</strong>imal <strong>in</strong> Arizona. Certa<strong>in</strong> reasons <strong>for</strong> fail<strong>in</strong>g to useall or a portion of a water right are exempted from<strong>for</strong>feiture, but none of <strong>the</strong> reasons expressly noted<strong>in</strong> law cover voluntary water conservation ef<strong>for</strong>tsgenerally. Only <strong>the</strong> state and its political subdivisionsmay change <strong>the</strong> purpose of use of a water right to<strong>in</strong>stream flow and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al priority dateof <strong>the</strong> right. 64 This scenario is better than no onehav<strong>in</strong>g that ability, but private participation is likelyto be limited by <strong>the</strong> fact that a water right mustbe permanently transferred to <strong>the</strong> state or politicalsubdivision <strong>the</strong>reof <strong>for</strong> this to happen. 65 In addition,<strong>the</strong>re is little clarity <strong>in</strong> Arizona as to rights <strong>in</strong> conservedwater and what can be done with <strong>the</strong>m.Forfeiture has not been en<strong>for</strong>ced <strong>in</strong> Arizona <strong>in</strong> manyyears, if at all, which reduces <strong>the</strong> practical need <strong>for</strong>exemptions <strong>in</strong> order to encourage water conservationand promote leav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> conserved water <strong>in</strong>stream.However, <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>feiture statute is still on <strong>the</strong> books. 66Even though it is not a factor now, it may be <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>future. Nonuse is allowed <strong>for</strong> several reasons, butonly two of <strong>the</strong>m are potentially relevant to waterconservation and none are <strong>for</strong> voluntary conservationef<strong>for</strong>ts. 67 The f<strong>in</strong>al nonuse allowance is “[a]nyo<strong>the</strong>r reason that a court of competent jurisdictiondeems would warrant nonuse,” which at least has <strong>the</strong>potential to <strong>in</strong>clude voluntary water conservation. 68Similarly, Arizona’s <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights laws are notparticularly favorable <strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g water conservationto benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows. Any water right may bechanged to an <strong>in</strong>stream flow purpose, which <strong>in</strong>Arizona is a recreation, wildlife, or fish purpose. Butif it is not to lose <strong>the</strong> priority of <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al waterright, it must be transferred <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>itely to <strong>the</strong> stateor one of its political subdivisions. 69 Reta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>orig<strong>in</strong>al priority date is critical, o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong>outcome is little different than appropriat<strong>in</strong>g a newwater right <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow, which anyone can do<strong>in</strong> Arizona, while los<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> old, valuable water right.Thus, effectively, only <strong>the</strong> state and its politicalsubdivisions can hold water rights that have beenchanged to an <strong>in</strong>stream flow purpose. This is similarto <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>in</strong> Colorado, but <strong>in</strong> Arizona <strong>the</strong>re isno clear avenue <strong>for</strong> leas<strong>in</strong>g water to <strong>the</strong> state <strong>for</strong> thispurpose, only permanent transfers. This reducesflexibility and likely participation <strong>in</strong> chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>purpose of a water right to <strong>in</strong>stream flow.Many of Arizona’s irrigated acres are served by waterunder contract from <strong>the</strong> Central Arizona Project orthrough o<strong>the</strong>r contracts <strong>for</strong> Colorado River water.These contracts have <strong>the</strong>ir own parameters and evenunique rules. Of note, county water authorities maysubcontract <strong>for</strong> Colorado River water <strong>for</strong> recreationalor fish and wildlife purposes when subcontractshave not been executed or when <strong>the</strong>re is no currentdemand <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> water by <strong>the</strong> subcontractors. 70 If <strong>the</strong>lack of municipal and <strong>in</strong>dustrial demand is caused byconservation, this explicit subcontract<strong>in</strong>g opportunitymay be a means of connect<strong>in</strong>g water constervationand <strong>in</strong>stream flows. These subcontracts are limited tofive years, although <strong>the</strong>y can be renewed. 71While noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Arizona law appears to substantiallyblock a change of conserved water to an <strong>in</strong>streamflow right, <strong>the</strong>re is not much history of it <strong>in</strong> practice,which may itself present a big hurdle.64 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-172(A).65 Jesse A. Boyd, Hip Deep: A Survey of State <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>Law from <strong>the</strong> Rocky Mounta<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> Pacific Ocean, 43 Nat.Resources J. 1151, 1154 (2003).66 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-188.67 See id. § 45-189(E).68 Id. § 45-189(E)(13).69 Id. § 45-172(A).70 Id. § 45-2244(F).71 Id.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>44
New MexicoNew Mexico has a few of <strong>the</strong> key legal pieces <strong>for</strong>facilitat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> use of water conservation to benefit<strong>in</strong>stream flows, but <strong>the</strong> dearth of <strong>in</strong>stream flow lawsand experience h<strong>in</strong>ders such an ef<strong>for</strong>t. The state’s<strong>for</strong>feiture exemptions do <strong>in</strong>clude water conservationprograms. 72 In addition, improved irrigation methodsand changes <strong>in</strong> agriculture practices do not dim<strong>in</strong>ishbeneficial use, which protects <strong>the</strong> conserved agriculturalwater from <strong>for</strong>feiture. 73 The purpose and placeof use of conserved water can be changed, but NewMexico law only explicitly allows it <strong>for</strong> agriculture. 74Although state law allows <strong>the</strong> purpose of exist<strong>in</strong>gwater rights to be changed to <strong>in</strong>stream flow, statutesand regulations are silent as to <strong>the</strong> details. As a result,<strong>the</strong>re is potential but little current opportunity toprotect conserved water put to <strong>in</strong>stream flow usefrom o<strong>the</strong>r users.New Mexico has a number of <strong>for</strong>feiture exemptions,one of which is water conservation. This exemption,however, is not as general as it is <strong>in</strong> some of <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r bas<strong>in</strong> states. To qualify, <strong>the</strong> water right mustbe placed <strong>in</strong> a water conservation program approvedby <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer. 75 A separate statute, apply<strong>in</strong>gonly to agricultural water rights, provides greater flexibilityregard<strong>in</strong>g water conservation and <strong>for</strong>feiture.The law states that changes <strong>in</strong> irrigation and o<strong>the</strong>ragriculture practices that result <strong>in</strong> water conservationare deemed not to dim<strong>in</strong>ish <strong>the</strong> beneficial use of <strong>the</strong>water right. 76 In effect, agricultural water conservationis a beneficial use of water. S<strong>in</strong>ce water be<strong>in</strong>gput to a beneficial use is <strong>in</strong>herently not <strong>in</strong> danger of<strong>for</strong>feiture, this is ano<strong>the</strong>r means of achiev<strong>in</strong>g a <strong>for</strong>feitureexemption. Both of <strong>the</strong>se laws have <strong>the</strong> potentialto allow conserved water to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream withoutrisk to <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al water right. The latter law,however, appears to have fewer practical limitations,albeit applicable only to agriculture.Like Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, New Mexico takes <strong>the</strong> next step andallows <strong>the</strong> purpose and place of use of conservedwater to be changed. Unlike Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, <strong>the</strong> NewMexico law only applies to water conservationresult<strong>in</strong>g from improved irrigation and changes <strong>in</strong>agricultural practices. 77 The water right holder stillmust apply to <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> change,and <strong>the</strong> water conservation may not impair o<strong>the</strong>rwater rights. 78 Depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer’sresponse to such applications, <strong>the</strong> necessary foundation<strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flowpurposes and protect<strong>in</strong>g that water from use byo<strong>the</strong>rs is present <strong>in</strong> New Mexico, at least <strong>for</strong> waterconservation from agriculture. It is important to note,however, that even if law and <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eermake this feasible, <strong>the</strong> practical opportunities <strong>in</strong> NewMexico may be limited by <strong>the</strong> low value of many of<strong>the</strong> crops, such as alfalfa (little f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>in</strong>centive andopportunity <strong>for</strong> improved irrigation), and <strong>the</strong> reactionsof irrigation and conservancy districts.The most significant legal hurdles to this endeavor<strong>in</strong> New Mexico actually may come from <strong>the</strong> lawsperta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>stream flow. In short, those laws arelargely undeveloped and untested. 79 In 1998, <strong>the</strong>nAttorney General of New Mexico Tom Udall issuedan op<strong>in</strong>ion stat<strong>in</strong>g that “<strong>the</strong>re is noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> NewMexico Constitution, statutes, or case law that wouldpreclude <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer from approv<strong>in</strong>g anapplication to change <strong>the</strong> purpose of use of an exist<strong>in</strong>gwater right to an <strong>in</strong>stream purpose.” 80 But o<strong>the</strong>rthan a 2005 regulation that explicitly <strong>in</strong>cludes fishand wildlife as well as recreation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ition ofbeneficial use, 81 state law has not developed much <strong>in</strong>terms of <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> 1998 op<strong>in</strong>ion.New Mexico law is silent as to who may hold <strong>in</strong>streamrights, <strong>for</strong> how long, and <strong>for</strong> what span of <strong>the</strong> waterbody.The Interstate Stream Commission is explicitlyauthorized to purchase, lease, or receive throughdonation water rights to support <strong>the</strong> strategic waterreserve, which has an <strong>in</strong>stream flow component s<strong>in</strong>ceit helps <strong>the</strong> state comply with <strong>in</strong>terstate compactsand court decrees and benefits threatened andendangered species. 82 Aside from <strong>in</strong>stream flowrights held by <strong>the</strong> commission <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se purposes, itis unclear what <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights could be <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>state. Depend<strong>in</strong>g on how this uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty is resolvedand <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer, New Mexicocould have <strong>the</strong> basic components <strong>in</strong> place to protectconserved agricultural water used <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flowfrom potential downstream users. For non-agriculturalwater conservation, however, <strong>the</strong> options appearfar more limited.72 NM Stat. Ann. § 72-5-28(G).73 Id. § 72-5-18(B).74 Id. § 72-5-18(C).75 Id. § 72-5-28(G).76 Id. § 72-5-18(B).77 Id. § 72-5-18(C).78 Id.79 See, e.g., Jesse A. Boyd, Hip Deep: A Survey of State <strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong> Law from <strong>the</strong> Rocky Mounta<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> Pacific Ocean, 43Nat. Resources J. 1151, 1202 (2003).80 AG Op<strong>in</strong>ion 98-01.81 NM Adm<strong>in</strong>. Code tit. 19, § 26.2.7(D).82 NM Stat. Ann. § 72-14-3.3.45 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Wyom<strong>in</strong>gWyom<strong>in</strong>g allows <strong>the</strong> change <strong>in</strong> purpose and placeof use of a water right to <strong>in</strong>stream flow, but this is<strong>the</strong> only aspect of state law that supports connect<strong>in</strong>gwater conservation with <strong>in</strong>stream flow, and it islimited.In Wyom<strong>in</strong>g only <strong>the</strong> state may hold an <strong>in</strong>stream flowright. 83 It may acquire any exist<strong>in</strong>g water rights bytransfer or gift <strong>for</strong> this purpose. 84 Thus, a water rightholder can change <strong>the</strong> purpose and place of use of awater right to <strong>in</strong>stream flow, but only by <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>itelytransferr<strong>in</strong>g it to <strong>the</strong> state. In addition, <strong>the</strong> Game andFish Commission must petition and receive approvalfrom <strong>the</strong> Board of Control to change <strong>the</strong> purposeof use of <strong>the</strong> right to <strong>in</strong>stream flow. 85 <strong>Instream</strong>flow rights must be applied to a specific streamsegment. 86 Also, with<strong>in</strong> one mile of <strong>the</strong> Wyom<strong>in</strong>gstate l<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> stem of <strong>the</strong> North Platte River,Big Horn Lake, Flam<strong>in</strong>g Gorge Reservoir, or PalisadesReservoir, waters of an <strong>in</strong>stream flow right can beappropriated by ano<strong>the</strong>r user <strong>for</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r beneficialuse. 87 <strong>Instream</strong> flow rights cannot result <strong>in</strong> morewater leav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> state than is allocated by <strong>in</strong>terstatecompact or Supreme Court decree. 88 Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore,<strong>the</strong> State Eng<strong>in</strong>eer is prohibited from en<strong>for</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights “unless present or future <strong>in</strong>juryto <strong>the</strong> fishery has been shown,” and a city or townmay condemn any portion of an <strong>in</strong>stream flow right<strong>for</strong> municipal purposes. 89 These restrictions on<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights reduce <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>centive <strong>for</strong> privateparty participation and would challenge ef<strong>for</strong>ts touse water conservation to benefit <strong>in</strong>stream flows,even if <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r pieces were <strong>in</strong> place to allow it.Wyom<strong>in</strong>g has no salvage law, so water conservationdoes not create water that could be <strong>for</strong> a new use, anew place, or transfer <strong>for</strong> those with rights to flow<strong>in</strong>gwater. In addition, Wyom<strong>in</strong>g has standardized waterrights <strong>for</strong> agricultural uses, similar to those found <strong>in</strong>Utah, one cubic-foot per second of flow <strong>for</strong> 70 acres.If a farmer receives no credit <strong>for</strong> reductions <strong>in</strong> consumptiveuse through improved irrigation, a change<strong>in</strong> crop, or some o<strong>the</strong>r means, this policy presentsa significant hurdle to us<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>for</strong>an <strong>in</strong>stream flow purpose <strong>in</strong> Wyom<strong>in</strong>g. However,<strong>the</strong>re have been <strong>in</strong>stances <strong>in</strong> Wyom<strong>in</strong>g where waterconservation measures have benefitted those withrights to stored water. For example, <strong>the</strong> U.S. Bureauof Reclamation was able to use water conserved froml<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a canal, and <strong>the</strong> City of Casper has ga<strong>the</strong>redsaved stored water.Wyom<strong>in</strong>g law does not have <strong>for</strong>feiture exemptionsrelevant to water conservation. As a result, <strong>the</strong>re isno legal protection of <strong>the</strong> portion of a water rightnot be<strong>in</strong>g used due to water conservation measures.This leaves a dis<strong>in</strong>centive to benefitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>streamflows by just leav<strong>in</strong>g conserved water <strong>in</strong>stream, andit dist<strong>in</strong>guishes Wyom<strong>in</strong>g from all o<strong>the</strong>r states <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>bas<strong>in</strong>. However, <strong>for</strong>feiture is often hard to prove <strong>in</strong>Wyom<strong>in</strong>g, so <strong>the</strong> exemption may not be as necessary<strong>in</strong> practice as it is <strong>in</strong> some of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r bas<strong>in</strong> states.There may still be opportunity <strong>for</strong> water right holdersto leave <strong>the</strong> amount of water conserved <strong>in</strong>stream;<strong>the</strong>re just is not legal protection of <strong>the</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>alright or any assurance that <strong>the</strong> water will rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>stream. 9083 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-3-1002(e).84 Id. § 41-3-1007(a).85 Id. § 41-3-104.86 Id. § 41-3-1007(b).87 Id. §§ 41-3-1002.88 Id. § 41-3-1006(h).89 Id. §§ 41-3-1008, 41-3-1013.90 See Jesse A. Boyd, Hip Deep: A Survey of State <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>Law from <strong>the</strong> Rocky Mounta<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> Pacific Ocean, 43 Nat.Resources J. 1151, 1198 (2003).<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>46
Challenges,Incentivesand Promis<strong>in</strong>gOpportunities:<strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>and <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>sPractical possibilities <strong>for</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts and <strong>in</strong>stream flows do existwith<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current context of <strong>the</strong> ColoradoRiver bas<strong>in</strong>. Lessons from experience westwidecan be applied to legal and o<strong>the</strong>rcharacteristics of <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>. Given a stream stretchwith a clearly identified need <strong>for</strong> improved <strong>in</strong>streamflows and a realistic opportunity <strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g waterefficiency <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> surround<strong>in</strong>g area, will<strong>in</strong>g partnersgenerally can build <strong>the</strong> bridges needed to overcomeo<strong>the</strong>r challenges.While many challenges may h<strong>in</strong>der <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k betweenwater efficiency and improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong>practice, many of those <strong>in</strong>terviewed believe <strong>the</strong>seobstacles can be channeled <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong>centives and strategiesto streng<strong>the</strong>n this l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>in</strong> parts of <strong>the</strong> ColoradoRiver bas<strong>in</strong>. We describe <strong>in</strong> this chapter commoncharacteristics of a successful situation and frameseveral possible practical approaches <strong>for</strong> will<strong>in</strong>g partnersto pursue promis<strong>in</strong>g opportunities with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>bas<strong>in</strong>’s exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitutional context. Which approachwill be most useful depends on <strong>the</strong> specific localsituation and <strong>the</strong> partners.This chapter is based on our analysis of <strong>the</strong>comments heard from over 40 <strong>in</strong>-bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviews,advisory group members and <strong>the</strong> project team, aswell as <strong>in</strong>put from a one-day <strong>in</strong>-bas<strong>in</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g sessionof experts. 1 Lessons from <strong>the</strong> west-wide case studiesand 20 <strong>in</strong>terviews from participants <strong>in</strong> those ef<strong>for</strong>tswere also considered.1 For more <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g session, see Appendix 2.47 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Challenges to Be MetA wide range of challenges arise when peoplecontemplate us<strong>in</strong>g water from water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts to help improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. One person summed up <strong>the</strong>obstacles as:We don’t have <strong>the</strong> water or <strong>the</strong> right to it(a legal barrier);We don’t have <strong>the</strong> money (a fund<strong>in</strong>g obstacle);We don’t know what we want (an environmentalissue); andNobody cares (a will<strong>in</strong>gness/awarenesschallenge).LegalThe traditional characteristics of prior appropriationcan appear to be a <strong>for</strong>midable barrier. But it’simportant to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between <strong>the</strong> actual lawand <strong>the</strong> perception of what is and is not possibleunder it.Improvement <strong>in</strong> water use efficiency may adverselyaffect o<strong>the</strong>r water rights <strong>in</strong> some situations.The procedures <strong>for</strong> chang<strong>in</strong>g an exist<strong>in</strong>g waterright to an <strong>in</strong>stream flow right vary <strong>in</strong> complexitydepend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> state; who may hold an <strong>in</strong>streamflow right, <strong>for</strong> what duration, and <strong>for</strong> what distance<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> stream varies as well by state.In some states, conserved water cannot be used <strong>for</strong>ano<strong>the</strong>r purpose or <strong>in</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r place.Some states prohibit <strong>in</strong>stream flow rights from limit<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> state’s ability to exercise compact rights,thus reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> opportunity <strong>for</strong> multi-state<strong>in</strong>stream flow protections.O<strong>the</strong>r laws at different levels of governance addressa wide range of water issues, such as storage andgroundwater, which can directly or <strong>in</strong>directly<strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> availability of water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow.More on <strong>the</strong>se challenges is found <strong>in</strong> Chapter 3.Institutional and MotivationalPolarized water <strong>in</strong>terests exist <strong>in</strong> many areas, basedon previous events. Fear, uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty, and lack oftrust can dom<strong>in</strong>ate conversations about <strong>the</strong> use ofconserved water. Attitudes commonly expressed:leav<strong>in</strong>g water <strong>in</strong>stream is “waste;” temporarybecomes permanent; <strong>in</strong>stream flow is not perceivedas a benefit until it’s <strong>for</strong>ced.A wide array of federal and state programs affect<strong>in</strong>dividual water allocation and managementdecisions, and <strong>the</strong> larger scale water rights andsupply systems of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> canoverwhelm what’s possible. Some areas may lackcapacity and expertise <strong>for</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g watertransfers and water conservation programs.The jurisdictional boundaries of those entitiesundertak<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts may not match<strong>the</strong> location of streamflow needs, mak<strong>in</strong>g it difficultto match water from efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts with <strong>in</strong>streamflow needs.State water conservation plann<strong>in</strong>g requirementsmay not encourage water efficiency <strong>for</strong> streamflowpurposes. Government <strong>in</strong>stitutions may need anoutside push to embrace water efficiency programs<strong>for</strong> this purpose.The environment is perceived by some as an impositionor outside requirement, and <strong>the</strong>re are those whobelieve that divert<strong>in</strong>g water <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream environmentwill not provide local benefits.Some <strong>in</strong>dividual farmers are concerned that watertransfers or conservation will result <strong>in</strong> unmet districtwater needs; some municipalities are concerned thatallow<strong>in</strong>g water <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream needs will result <strong>in</strong> unmetfuture human water demands.Uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty as to future demand and <strong>in</strong>security aboutfuture water availability can lead a municipal waterprovider to err on <strong>the</strong> high side. Similarly, precisewater use, and <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e sav<strong>in</strong>gs, can be difficult tocome by on <strong>the</strong> agricultural side, out of fear thatwater not “used” could be <strong>for</strong>feited.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>48
Challenges to Be MetRegard<strong>in</strong>g agricultural water use, one person put it,“We’re stuck between two generalities: agricultureuses so much water; or, it’s all return flows. We needto get to this case by case—can it work here?” Similarsentiments about polarized attitudes were voicedabout municipal water use.Economics and F<strong>in</strong>ancesFor some, <strong>the</strong> first and biggest question is who willfund <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts. A disconnect <strong>in</strong> costs, benefits,and impacts <strong>in</strong>hibits action. Money is often neededto make improvements upfront, be<strong>for</strong>e any economicbenefit accrues.Many municipal water providers perceive and<strong>in</strong> fact experience a decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> revenues fromwater efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts. There can be a f<strong>in</strong>ancialconsequence to overachiev<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> water efficiency,especially comb<strong>in</strong>ed with o<strong>the</strong>r factors such as aweak local economy. Enormous <strong>in</strong>vestments areneeded <strong>in</strong> many cases to improve agricultural watermanagement <strong>in</strong>efficiencies; <strong>the</strong>y may not be costeffective on <strong>the</strong>ir own.A current lack of money <strong>in</strong> state water protectionand o<strong>the</strong>r funds can curtail <strong>in</strong>terest. And tensionbetween local control and state or federal moneycan limit effectiveness where funds are available.Physical and EnvironmentalThe tim<strong>in</strong>g and location of <strong>in</strong>stream flow needs maynot match <strong>the</strong> water that can be made available.Similarly, follow<strong>in</strong>g a physical drop of water mayshow that water efficiency does not result <strong>in</strong> streamflow<strong>in</strong> a particular situation.All <strong>in</strong>dividual ef<strong>for</strong>ts take place <strong>in</strong> a bas<strong>in</strong> context;un<strong>in</strong>tended consequences may result. Increasedefficiency may alter <strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g or volume of returnflows, and thus affect flows <strong>in</strong> a downstream stretchor at a critical time <strong>for</strong> downstream fisheries. <strong>Water</strong>quality impacts from more efficient water use canvary depend<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong> stream and local conditions.The groundwater and thus streamflow is site-specific:sometimes it helps ease pressure on a stream whileo<strong>the</strong>r times it takes away a source of streamflow. Andstreamflow improvement may un<strong>in</strong>tentionally createnew habitat <strong>for</strong> endangered species.Riparian areas <strong>in</strong> some states may be more importantthan physical water flows. And <strong>in</strong> some parts of <strong>the</strong>lower bas<strong>in</strong>, streams are ephemeral or effluent dom<strong>in</strong>ated.In both cases, environmental improvementmay depend on more than streamflow.Scientific <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation regard<strong>in</strong>g where and how muchflow is needed must be available. Analysis detailedenough <strong>for</strong> decision mak<strong>in</strong>g can be expensive.<strong>Water</strong> UseThe pressures of be<strong>in</strong>g cont<strong>in</strong>ually water short canaffect both attitudes and possibilities. Plans <strong>for</strong> futurewater needs—drought, development, demands ofgrowth—often place <strong>the</strong> environment far down <strong>the</strong>list of priorities. Some see efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts as contribut<strong>in</strong>gto urban sprawl by provid<strong>in</strong>g more watersupply <strong>for</strong> growth.Communities may have a goal to conserve but noplan <strong>for</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> conserved water. Different estimatesof water available from efficiency activities cancomplicate plann<strong>in</strong>g.The perception of water utility managers that municipalwater demand may harden, become less flexible,from more efficient water use makes some less will<strong>in</strong>gto embrace new water efficiency strategies. Although<strong>the</strong>re are no studies document<strong>in</strong>g this “demandharden<strong>in</strong>g” effect, this perception that it exists isnone<strong>the</strong>less a barrier.Agricultural evapotranspiration (ET) losses andconsumptive (vs. nonconsumptive) water use canimpact how much water from efficiency measures canbe made available <strong>in</strong>stream, and where. The effect ofefficiencies on <strong>the</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g and volume of diversions aswell as return flows can also complicate a project.49 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Incentives and Strategies: How to Forge a Practical <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong>While <strong>the</strong>re are clearly many challenges,those <strong>in</strong>terviewed commonly believe thatoften <strong>the</strong>se apparently pervasive challengescan be addressed. Each situation must beevaluated separately, on a local or watershed basis.It’s important to identify <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>in</strong> a particularsituation and consciously f<strong>in</strong>d ways to address <strong>the</strong>m.What makes sense <strong>in</strong> water conservation andmanagement varies greatly. Successful ef<strong>for</strong>ts donot impose one approach, but allow autonomy todevelop an approach <strong>for</strong> a specific situation—howcan it work here? The model or arrangement can bedifferent <strong>in</strong> each case, def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>centives state bystate and even case by case.Different <strong>in</strong>centives motivate different types of will<strong>in</strong>gpartners: communities, water suppliers, agriculturalwater districts, farmers and ranchers, nonprofitorganizations, and government partners. Identify<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>centives with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g system that work <strong>for</strong>each participant is important.LegalWhile it is more difficult <strong>in</strong> some bas<strong>in</strong> states than<strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, it is possible to l<strong>in</strong>k water efficiency andstreamflows <strong>in</strong> each state. In several bas<strong>in</strong> states,some creativity is required and legal protections ofconserved water put <strong>in</strong>stream may not be available.Slight changes <strong>in</strong> a state’s water law can open moreopportunities. Often ways can be found, despiteapparent legal limitations.Forfeiture and abandonment exemptions <strong>for</strong> waterconservation have <strong>the</strong> potential to <strong>in</strong>centivize, or atleast remove a dis<strong>in</strong>centive to, conserv<strong>in</strong>g water andleav<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong>stream.Some states allow a change <strong>in</strong> purpose and place ofuse of conserved water.Some states allow temporary changes to an <strong>in</strong>streamflow right or even allow <strong>in</strong>dividuals to hold waterrights that have been changed to an <strong>in</strong>stream flowpurpose, which may encourage more water conservation<strong>for</strong> an <strong>in</strong>stream flow purpose as compared toall <strong>in</strong>stream rights be<strong>in</strong>g held by <strong>the</strong> government <strong>in</strong>perpetuity.Court decisions and o<strong>the</strong>r precedent-sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terpretationsof laws relevant to <strong>the</strong> different ways ofus<strong>in</strong>g conserved water to improve <strong>in</strong>stream flows maynot yet exist. While this decreases certa<strong>in</strong>ty, it alsoprovides opportunity s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re are fewer <strong>for</strong>malhurdles and a chance to set precedent favorable to<strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts.In some <strong>in</strong>stances, out-of-bas<strong>in</strong> diversions may result<strong>in</strong> more water from efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts and require lessprocess because return flows (and downstream users)are not an issue as a result of “<strong>for</strong>eign water” laws.This allows <strong>the</strong> reduction <strong>in</strong> diversion to be fully used<strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow protection.Legal issues can be addressed <strong>in</strong> two ways: first, bydef<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g what is possible with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g framework,and how much legal certa<strong>in</strong>ty exists by state;and second, by clarify<strong>in</strong>g upfront <strong>for</strong> a given situationhow to reduce legal and regulatory uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>50
Incentives and Strategies: How to Forge a Practical <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong>Institutional and MotivationalAttitude, trust and will<strong>in</strong>gness are <strong>the</strong> most importantfactors <strong>in</strong> success, accord<strong>in</strong>g to those <strong>in</strong>terviewed.These can counteract polarization, motivation andattitude concerns.Partnerships <strong>for</strong> action are important—one waterright holder can’t do this alone. These ef<strong>for</strong>ts requirewill<strong>in</strong>g partners and local support.Personal leadership is key to build<strong>in</strong>g bridges amongpartners, especially water rights holders. A catalyst orchampion to jump start <strong>the</strong> process can really help: anonprofit organization or a water user with environmentalvalues or need to make a change <strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>gwater uses. In <strong>the</strong> Pacific Northwest almost everystate has nonprofit groups serv<strong>in</strong>g as catalysts <strong>for</strong>action, gett<strong>in</strong>g folks on <strong>the</strong> ground work<strong>in</strong>g personto person, river by river.Motivation often comes from outside events, termed“<strong>for</strong>ced reasons” by one <strong>in</strong>terviewee. EndangeredSpecies Act species-specific requirements, or anticipationof <strong>the</strong>m, can serve as a powerful driver <strong>for</strong>action. O<strong>the</strong>r federal environmental laws and requirements,such as wastewater (NPDES), water quality,section 404 or TMDL requirements under <strong>the</strong> Clean<strong>Water</strong> Act, can serve <strong>the</strong> same role. Refocused stateand federal water conservation plan requirementscan motivate action, as can tribal water settlements.Motivations to take action can be social—“green”values <strong>in</strong> a community, water-based recreation<strong>in</strong>terests such as fish<strong>in</strong>g and boat<strong>in</strong>g, or a simple loveof <strong>the</strong> land. It’s possible to build on motivations <strong>for</strong>environmental mitigation to improve streamflow.Incentives-based and w<strong>in</strong>-w<strong>in</strong> solutions will engagewater users. Each partner must “feel better off withthan without” <strong>the</strong> arrangement, though <strong>in</strong> somesituations better off can be simply avoid<strong>in</strong>g a loss,even a future loss, or be<strong>in</strong>g assured of no futureharm. Interest may be even higher when <strong>the</strong>re’s adirect benefit <strong>for</strong> property owners or water rightsholders, such as improved operations.Many of those <strong>in</strong>terviewed note that piece-by-piecetransactions can make more progress than tackl<strong>in</strong>gentrenched systems, and that mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k is lessabout <strong>the</strong> technological and physical base and moreabout <strong>the</strong> agreements.Three way trades—e.g. agriculture, streamflow, fishand game; or agriculture, urban, environment—canproduce benefits <strong>for</strong> all. Ef<strong>for</strong>ts can take advantage ofa long history of folks work<strong>in</strong>g toge<strong>the</strong>r to keep up<strong>the</strong> “call” on <strong>the</strong> Colorado River. And if <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>streamenvironment can be treated as ano<strong>the</strong>r beneficiary orcustomer with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> district, improved streamflow <strong>in</strong>that area may result.Institutionally, many state and federal programs withsimilar goals already exist, such as Wild and ScenicRivers programs. It’s important to identify targets ofopportunity that are not already addressed by <strong>the</strong>se,and let successes cont<strong>in</strong>ue <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r programs.An ef<strong>for</strong>t focused with<strong>in</strong> one state makes it easierto l<strong>in</strong>e up diverse <strong>in</strong>stitutions and jurisdictions andutilize exist<strong>in</strong>g programs.Economics and F<strong>in</strong>ancesMoney can really motivate, though it is not <strong>the</strong> onlyfactor. Put ano<strong>the</strong>r way, <strong>the</strong> glue hold<strong>in</strong>g toge<strong>the</strong>r apartnership can be fund<strong>in</strong>g—adequate fund<strong>in</strong>g totake care of all <strong>in</strong>terests. Interviews suggested thatlack of obvious fund<strong>in</strong>g sources does not by itselfpreclude action.Exist<strong>in</strong>g fund<strong>in</strong>g programs with o<strong>the</strong>r stated purposescan often be applied to <strong>the</strong> water efficiencystreamflowl<strong>in</strong>k. Federal and <strong>in</strong> some cases statefund<strong>in</strong>g may be available from habitat programs,mitigation and habitat conservation funds, and o<strong>the</strong>rprograms that do not target streamflow. Fund<strong>in</strong>gmay be cobbled toge<strong>the</strong>r from several sources ona case-by-case basis. Federal fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> waterefficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts is available from several programs at<strong>the</strong> U.S. Departments of Agriculture and <strong>the</strong> Interior;environmental benefits may be part of <strong>the</strong> criteria<strong>for</strong> selection. Federally sponsored programs, suchas <strong>the</strong> Sal<strong>in</strong>ity Control Program and <strong>the</strong> programimplement<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Central Utah Project, may allowand even actively welcome water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsthat improve streamflows.While temporary fund<strong>in</strong>g has supported some ef<strong>for</strong>ts,<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> long run permanent sources of fund<strong>in</strong>g maybe required. On <strong>the</strong> regional level, <strong>the</strong> BonnevillePower Adm<strong>in</strong>istration’s Columbia River Bas<strong>in</strong> Fishand Wildlife Program and Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong>Transactions Fund may serve as models to structure51 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Incentives and Strategies: How to Forge a Practical <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong>cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g source of revenues <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong>. On <strong>the</strong> state level, <strong>the</strong> dedicated state fund<strong>in</strong>g<strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>- and out-of-stream water supply improvementsof Wash<strong>in</strong>gton’s Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River couldprove to be an option.The economics of <strong>in</strong>centives must be worked outcase by case. Many creative economic solutions arepossible. <strong>Water</strong> available from efficiencies could bepurchased <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream use. Private <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>stream flow needs may allow greater <strong>in</strong>vestmentcerta<strong>in</strong>ty. Allow<strong>in</strong>g water customers to participate <strong>in</strong>fund<strong>in</strong>g can also build support as well as fund<strong>in</strong>g.Positive f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>in</strong>centives may be less importantthan simply not los<strong>in</strong>g money. Mechanisms toaddress f<strong>in</strong>ancial concerns of municipalities, such asdecoupl<strong>in</strong>g water rates from volume used, similar to<strong>the</strong> energy sector, may help to make a water utilityf<strong>in</strong>ancially whole from any decreased revenue as aresult of <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t.<strong>Instream</strong> flow must compare favorably <strong>in</strong> economicterms, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> competition <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> water available fromgreater efficiencies, with water demands <strong>for</strong> greatersupply and growth.Physical and EnvironmentalA water district or municipality can achieve environmentalbenefit with a change <strong>in</strong> tim<strong>in</strong>g and/orlocation of diversions, as well as by add<strong>in</strong>g to streamstretches between or with no headgates. A strategicallyrelocated po<strong>in</strong>t of diversion, as part of a watermanagement ef<strong>for</strong>t, can boost streamflow <strong>in</strong> a particularstream stretch, without necessarily affect<strong>in</strong>gwater rights or consumptive use.Several states already have ways to assess streamflowneeds and rank<strong>in</strong>g systems to assist <strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>gstream stretches with clear benefit, such as Arizona’sstate water atlas, Colorado’s regional roundtables, <strong>the</strong>Wyom<strong>in</strong>g Game and Fish five year plan, and Oregon’s<strong>in</strong>stream flow targets.In Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, <strong>the</strong> quantifiable objective concept isnot, but could be, seen as a three-way benefit <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong> environment. Habitat conservation plans,while complex, can offer useful <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation.S<strong>in</strong>ce simply avoid<strong>in</strong>g harm can be an <strong>in</strong>centive,anticipat<strong>in</strong>g as much as possible un<strong>in</strong>tended physicalconsequences and adjust<strong>in</strong>g or plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m canlead to success. Unaddressed return flow issues cancomplicate a water efficiency project, especially onewith <strong>in</strong>tended streamflow benefits. Quantify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>consumptive part of an agricultural water right andof actual return flow, as well as consumption by noncropwater users such as phreatophytes and evaporativelosses, can improve certa<strong>in</strong>ty of benefits.Account<strong>in</strong>g and quantification issues, such as howto track flows and benefits, can be more easilyaddressed upfront. One approach to a better connectionbetween account<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>- and out-of-streamneeds, fund<strong>in</strong>g and legal structure is employed byWash<strong>in</strong>gton State’s Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River,which estimates <strong>in</strong>- and out-of-stream demand <strong>for</strong>water, funds projects to <strong>in</strong>crementally meet thatdemand, and protects water saved <strong>in</strong>stream through<strong>the</strong> state’s trust water rights program.<strong>Water</strong> UseSeveral recent reports identify opportunities <strong>for</strong>municipal water conservation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong>. 2 One user-friendly model <strong>for</strong> analyz<strong>in</strong>g communitywater efficiency programs is readily availableto assist <strong>in</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g cost-effective programs. 3Agricultural water efficiency <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> farmersand water districts is readily available as well. Andseveral states have policies and programs thatsupport local water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts.<strong>Water</strong> efficiency <strong>for</strong> streamflow can be l<strong>in</strong>ked tocurrent structural proposals or o<strong>the</strong>r water managementef<strong>for</strong>ts. Claim<strong>in</strong>g environmental benefits frommore efficient water use, as one component of aproject, can improve a project’s economics.As growth <strong>in</strong> water demand and developmenthas slowed with a depressed economy, short termopportunities <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvement mayemerge. <strong>Water</strong> efficiency programs that delay actualwithdrawal of water may allow water to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> astream stretch <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> short term.2 See <strong>for</strong> example Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong><strong>Water</strong>, Michael J. Cohen, Pacific Institute 2011.3 More <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on AWE’s track<strong>in</strong>g tool is at http://www.alliance<strong>for</strong>waterefficiency.org/Track<strong>in</strong>g-Tool.aspx.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>52
State or Federal Legal and Policy OptionsIdentify<strong>in</strong>g active roles <strong>for</strong> state and federal government<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts and <strong>in</strong>streamflows is not <strong>the</strong> focus of this project. Most <strong>in</strong>dividuals<strong>in</strong>terviewed felt it important to work with<strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>stitutional and legal structures. State or federalpolicy changes—some simple tweaks, some moresignificant—are beyond <strong>the</strong> scope of this study(below we briefly address ways to encourage localaction with<strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g structures).Still, many of those consulted <strong>for</strong> this report po<strong>in</strong>tedto possible <strong>in</strong>centive, law and policy changes thatstates or federal agencies could undertake tofacilitate <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k between water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>tsand improved streamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong>. The most commonly offered of <strong>the</strong>se arereported here.Several powerful state actions were frequentlyproposed:Establish new state-based fund<strong>in</strong>g mechanisms<strong>for</strong> projects that improve flows along with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gwater supply certa<strong>in</strong>ty (see, e.g. Wash<strong>in</strong>gtonState’s Office of <strong>the</strong> Columbia River).Retool <strong>the</strong> rules <strong>for</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g fund<strong>in</strong>g programsestablished <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r purposes to allow or giveextra credit <strong>for</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>ts that l<strong>in</strong>k water efficiencyand streamflows.Adopt a percentage set-aside from any water righttransfer <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flows as a transaction costof any transfer or any change to a water right. InArizona, a percentage of water stored throughartificial recharge must be left <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> aquifer as a“cut to <strong>the</strong> aquifer” and <strong>the</strong> rest may be recovered<strong>for</strong> beneficial use. In Oregon, a percentage (usually25 percent) of any conserved water from waterefficiency measures is automatically allocated to<strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> exchange <strong>for</strong> a change <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>water right allow<strong>in</strong>g use, sale or transfer of <strong>the</strong>conserved water.Utilize permit conditions <strong>for</strong> state water qualityand water management programs to encouragewater efficiency measures that meet programobjectives.Federal and multi-state adjustments to <strong>the</strong> largerwater management system to allow or encourageefficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts, primarily <strong>the</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>ce of <strong>the</strong> U.S.Department of <strong>the</strong> Interior (Reclamation) and <strong>the</strong>Bas<strong>in</strong> Compact signatories, were also suggested:Amend <strong>the</strong> rules by which federal funds <strong>for</strong> waterefficiency are spent, such as NRCS EQIP andUSBR <strong>Water</strong>SMART grants, to give extra credit <strong>for</strong><strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits.Allow policies and agreements flexible enoughto allow streams and rivers to serve as conveyancesystems between sources and po<strong>in</strong>ts of use,particularly where enhanced flows may benefit<strong>the</strong> river ecosystem, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g across watersheds.Consider o<strong>the</strong>r ways to allow a portion of conservedwater to be made available <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>streamflows bas<strong>in</strong>wide.Encourage measures that modify and apply <strong>the</strong>concepts of <strong>the</strong> Intentionally Created Surplus(ICS) program <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> 4to allow l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency programs with<strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper bas<strong>in</strong> and bas<strong>in</strong>wide.Use <strong>the</strong> Colorado River <strong>Water</strong> Supply and DemandStudy (Bas<strong>in</strong> Study) process as an opportunity todiscuss both <strong>in</strong>stitutional arrangements and environmentalneeds, as <strong>the</strong> study enters phase two.This might explore <strong>the</strong> changes needed to allowwater bank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> environmental needs acrossstate l<strong>in</strong>es and between lower and upper bas<strong>in</strong>partners. 5Adapt federal project purposes to meet environmentalneeds, such as needs of ephemeralstreams <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower bas<strong>in</strong> affected by <strong>the</strong>Central Arizona Project.Employ mitigation obligations <strong>for</strong> hydropowerdam owner/operators or o<strong>the</strong>rs to helprestore flows and habitat, as does BonnevillePower Adm<strong>in</strong>istration’s Columbia Bas<strong>in</strong> <strong>Water</strong>Transactions Program.4 One overview of ICS and its effect on water suppliers can befound at http://www.snwa.com/ws/river_surplus_ics.html.5 In<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> Bas<strong>in</strong> Study can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html.53 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Characteristics of SuccessThe many challenges of l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyef<strong>for</strong>ts to improved <strong>in</strong>stream flow can bemet by a range of <strong>in</strong>centives and strategies.Successful ef<strong>for</strong>ts have several commoncharacteristics that have emerged from ourwork. Many sections of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River havea wide array of water users and water <strong>in</strong>terests,municipal, <strong>in</strong>dustrial, agricultural, environmental,recreational, spiritual, etc., and different <strong>in</strong>centivesare necessary <strong>for</strong> different sets of partners <strong>in</strong>different scenarios to capitalize on <strong>the</strong> promis<strong>in</strong>gopportunitiesClearly Identified Streamflow NeedA clearly and scientifically def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>stream flowneed <strong>for</strong> a specific stream stretch can be necessaryto target efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts, promote buy-<strong>in</strong> throughclear goals, and improve implementation, and <strong>in</strong>some cases meet state or federal legal requirements<strong>for</strong> an <strong>in</strong>stream flow right. As scientific studies canbe time-consum<strong>in</strong>g and complex, <strong>in</strong> some casesrestor<strong>in</strong>g any flow to a specific stretch <strong>in</strong> need offlow improvement can be a worthwhile first step.<strong>Water</strong> Available Through <strong>Efficiency</strong>Measures <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Right Time and Place<strong>Water</strong> must be physically available, or at least potentiallyavailable, from water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts. Thewater available must also match or assist <strong>in</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> terms of tim<strong>in</strong>g, location and/orvolume of flows. Build<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency measures<strong>in</strong>to broader water management and/or habitat restorationef<strong>for</strong>ts may hold <strong>the</strong> most promise <strong>for</strong> success.Even communities and agricultural districts that haveimplemented water efficiency measures may f<strong>in</strong>droom <strong>for</strong> more sav<strong>in</strong>gs, with targeted programs and aclear environmental objective.Relevant QuantityA small amount of water can fill a significant need<strong>in</strong> a small stream although it does very little <strong>in</strong> alarge river. Tributaries and headwaters, ra<strong>the</strong>r than<strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>stem of <strong>the</strong> Colorado River, may generallyprovide more opportunities because <strong>the</strong>se areasoften <strong>in</strong>volve fewer water users and potentially lesslegal, procedural, and managerial complexity. Smallerscale projects can make a bigger difference <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>flow of headwaters streams than <strong>in</strong> lower parts of <strong>the</strong>Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>.A Champion, Will<strong>in</strong>g Partners andWill<strong>in</strong>gness to CooperateMost ef<strong>for</strong>ts require a champion to get <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>tstarted as well as br<strong>in</strong>g and hold groups toge<strong>the</strong>r.Multiple will<strong>in</strong>g partners help spread <strong>the</strong> costs.Communities and districts that can see <strong>the</strong> benefitsare more likely to engage <strong>in</strong> a sometimes lengthycollaborative process to shape <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t. Motivationscan be varied: besides f<strong>in</strong>ancial considerations, waterusers may have legal, ecological, recreational, or o<strong>the</strong>rconcerns that spark action. Greater certa<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> watersupplies can play a role. While an outside driver, suchas a potential Endangered Species Act action, canhelp motivate a desire <strong>for</strong> action, it can also createfear (sometimes motivat<strong>in</strong>g, sometimes paralyz<strong>in</strong>g)of outside regulation and its impacts. Geographically,areas of high growth <strong>in</strong> water demand may still f<strong>in</strong>dbenefit <strong>in</strong> water efficiency programs <strong>for</strong> streamflowimprovement.Approach Adapted to <strong>the</strong> SpecificSituation and <strong>the</strong> PartnersThe strategy and scale of <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t will differ <strong>in</strong> eachsituation, match<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terests and abilitiesof <strong>the</strong> partners. A s<strong>in</strong>gle approach, without tailoredvariations, will not work <strong>in</strong> every <strong>in</strong>stance. Experiencefrom around <strong>the</strong> West shows <strong>the</strong>re are several usefuloptions <strong>for</strong> approach (see follow<strong>in</strong>g).<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>54
Characteristics of SuccessFund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> MeasuresWhile money is not always essential, when comb<strong>in</strong>edwith bridge build<strong>in</strong>g it can create additional opportunitiesand even a more cooperative mentality. Acreative fund<strong>in</strong>g package may be necessary even <strong>for</strong>short-term actions. Fund<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong>creases certa<strong>in</strong>tyof <strong>in</strong>- and out-of-stream benefits may be most likelyto result <strong>in</strong> durable success.Def<strong>in</strong>ed Legal Path with<strong>in</strong> Exist<strong>in</strong>gState LawDespite perceptions to <strong>the</strong> contrary, state waterlaw is not always <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> obstacle to l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g waterefficiency and <strong>in</strong>stream flows. There are opportunitiesdespite <strong>the</strong> law and because of it. Ef<strong>for</strong>ts with <strong>the</strong>greatest chance of success are designed around whatis and is not possible under <strong>the</strong> law of <strong>the</strong> specificstate, tak<strong>in</strong>g advantage of legal protections such as<strong>in</strong>stream flow rights, where available. Creative <strong>in</strong>terpretationmay raise issues related to precedent thatmust be dealt with.Short Term and Pilot Ef<strong>for</strong>ts Can Lead<strong>the</strong> WayGreater opportunities may arise through temporary,not permanent, approaches. A pilot project or shortterm ef<strong>for</strong>t can demonstrate that it is possible towork through <strong>the</strong> many challenges, how it can bedone, and what <strong>the</strong> results are (and are not). <strong>Water</strong>users can be more open to <strong>the</strong>se ef<strong>for</strong>ts after hav<strong>in</strong>gseen <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> practice.Two recent ef<strong>for</strong>ts suggest factors similar to <strong>the</strong>sethat may help identify opportunities, at least <strong>for</strong>municipalities. A recent presentation on <strong>the</strong> Conserveto Enhance model cited three key factors: supportfrom local stakeholders, a community approved riveror enhancement project, and a way to account <strong>for</strong>participants’ water use and sav<strong>in</strong>gs. 6 A recent surveyof Colorado West Slope communities identifiedseveral criteria that may have broader applicability:a community connection to <strong>the</strong> river; opportunity<strong>for</strong> saved water to stay <strong>in</strong>stream <strong>for</strong> some distance; aphysical relationships between <strong>the</strong> diversion and <strong>the</strong>river; and water efficiency sav<strong>in</strong>gs that yield streamflow enhancement, community support and utilitybenefit. 76 Inspir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Water</strong> Conservation <strong>for</strong> Environmental Enhancement,Sharon B. Megdal, Joanna Nadeau. AWWWA annual conference,Wash<strong>in</strong>gton DC, June 2011.7 Rush<strong>in</strong>g Rivers Program: Feasibility Analysis of ApplicationWith<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong> of Western Colorado,Western Resource Advocates, July 2011 (p 3-1).55 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Approaches to PartnershipSeveral promis<strong>in</strong>g approaches have emerged<strong>for</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> local level. Which approachworks best <strong>for</strong> a given set of partners dependson <strong>the</strong> types of partners and <strong>the</strong> state andwatershed context.Two-Party Model of On-Farm <strong>Water</strong> RightOwner and NonprofitA conservation m<strong>in</strong>ded landowner may want waterto rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream and be will<strong>in</strong>g to work with anonprofit to do so. Trout Unlimited and <strong>the</strong> ClarkFork Coalition have had success with this approach <strong>in</strong>rural upstream rivers and streams <strong>in</strong> Montana. Legalprotections <strong>for</strong> conserved water are helpful here butnot always essential <strong>for</strong> success.Community with a Connection to <strong>the</strong> RiverThis approach builds on communities and residentswith a public connection to <strong>the</strong>ir stream, to channelthat concern <strong>in</strong>to water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts that yieldei<strong>the</strong>r water or money <strong>for</strong> local environmentalimprovement. The community could be small orlarge. A connection could be literal (<strong>the</strong> river runsthrough town), expressed <strong>in</strong> environmental values,or economic (water dependent tourism, fish<strong>in</strong>g). Anapproach that l<strong>in</strong>ks water users directly with <strong>in</strong>streamflow protection could work <strong>in</strong> almost any communitywith a close connection to <strong>the</strong>ir river. 8Agricultural District with a Desire toModernize and One That Sees Value <strong>in</strong><strong>Instream</strong> BenefitsFrom <strong>the</strong> large scale of Grand Valley, Colorado tomore localized ef<strong>for</strong>ts, agricultural districts can meet<strong>the</strong>ir water management needs and see <strong>in</strong>streamimprovements, often utiliz<strong>in</strong>g federal fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>water management improvements or habitatrestoration. In a June work<strong>in</strong>g session of expertsga<strong>the</strong>red on this topic, one group described whatmight work <strong>for</strong> a will<strong>in</strong>g agricultural district: motivatedby <strong>the</strong> threat of unmanaged “buy and dry;”ability to collect assessments; enough rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gwater volume <strong>for</strong> farm<strong>in</strong>g; a po<strong>in</strong>t of diversion thatallows enhanced streamflows; and exit fees, money,or cooperation with buyers, to let go of water.Nonprofit as a Will<strong>in</strong>g District PartnerThe <strong>in</strong>stream environment can be treated as ano<strong>the</strong>rbeneficiary, not a competitor, <strong>for</strong> water. An approachused by <strong>the</strong> Elephant Butte Irrigation District was notdeveloped <strong>for</strong> water efficiency but still can apply—<strong>the</strong> nonprofit is a will<strong>in</strong>g partner, treated as ano<strong>the</strong>rwater user by <strong>the</strong> agricultural water district. Thewater is used <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flows, <strong>in</strong> effect grow<strong>in</strong>g fishnot crops. 9Three-Way TradesApply<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> experience <strong>in</strong> three-way arrangements<strong>for</strong> water transfers—among agriculture, streamflow,and a government environmental authority (such asa state fish and game agency); or agriculture, urban,and environmental water uses—can provide moreoptions to l<strong>in</strong>k water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts with streamflowimprovements, and produce benefits <strong>for</strong> all. Thewater needs of <strong>the</strong> sectors may be at different times,have vary<strong>in</strong>g degrees of flexibility, or o<strong>the</strong>r characteristicsthat can optimize efficiencies.Multiparty ApproachMultiple partners collaborat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a watershed maybe able to anticipate an upcom<strong>in</strong>g environmentalimperative, whe<strong>the</strong>r physical or regulatory. Borrow<strong>in</strong>gfrom <strong>the</strong> Deschutes River bas<strong>in</strong> experience, a multipartynonprofit can act as a catalyst, look ahead <strong>for</strong>significant <strong>in</strong>stream flow issues, identify when andwhere water will be needed, and work with agriculturaldistricts and municipalities to identify <strong>in</strong>centivesto improve water efficiency.8 Conserve to Enhance: Voluntary Municipal Conservation toSupport Environmental Restoration, Schwarz, Megdal, Jan.2008, Journal of <strong>the</strong> American <strong>Water</strong> Works Association 100(pp. 43-53). http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/files/Journal_01-08_Schwarz-Megdal.pdf.See also Conserve to Enhance description <strong>in</strong> Case Studiessection.9 Agricultural/Urban/Environmental <strong>Water</strong> Shar<strong>in</strong>g: InnovativeStrategies <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River Bas<strong>in</strong> and <strong>the</strong> West,Colorado <strong>Water</strong> Institute, Colorado State University, 2010.http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/publications/sr/22.pdf.<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>56
Sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Stage <strong>for</strong> Local ActionNonprofits and government agencies canchoose to beg<strong>in</strong> short-term ef<strong>for</strong>ts that set<strong>the</strong> stage <strong>for</strong> local action and streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>l<strong>in</strong>k between <strong>in</strong>stream flow needs and waterefficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts. Most of those <strong>in</strong>terviewedfeel that work<strong>in</strong>g squarely with<strong>in</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitutionalstructures is important to success and that exist<strong>in</strong>gstate water efficiency and streamflow programs arean important start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t.Pilot ProjectsPilot projects tailored to a specific state or watershedcan show it’s possible to work through <strong>the</strong> many challenges,ease concerns, emphasize cooperation, anddemonstrate both results and a positive and scaleableapproach. They also can emphasize patience, <strong>for</strong>multiparty projects often take time and can’t be donequickly. Short of this, ef<strong>for</strong>ts to develop com<strong>for</strong>t with<strong>the</strong> concept and create awareness of <strong>the</strong> possible l<strong>in</strong>kbetween water efficiency and streamflow can help.Educational Ef<strong>for</strong>tsEducation by state and by watershed, <strong>in</strong> partnershipwith <strong>the</strong> state eng<strong>in</strong>eer’s office, can clarify what lawcan and cannot do. State programs that promotewater efficiency can also make <strong>the</strong> connection <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>public about <strong>the</strong> concept of improved streamflow asa benefit of efficiency. Target<strong>in</strong>g youth can build thisunderstand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> future generations. A tool box ofoptions <strong>for</strong> local action may take education and pilotprojects one step fur<strong>the</strong>r.Identify<strong>in</strong>g and Anticipat<strong>in</strong>g NeedsIdentify<strong>in</strong>g and publiciz<strong>in</strong>g areas where state orfederal endangered or threatened species may be afactor <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> future, as well as areas with upcom<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>stream flow needs and biological demand <strong>for</strong> waterthat may avoid future ESA and state regulation, mayhelp motivate will<strong>in</strong>g partners. Highlight<strong>in</strong>g keydrivers, “<strong>for</strong>ced reasons,” or powerful communityconnections to <strong>the</strong> river can also help.Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g among fund<strong>in</strong>g sources available <strong>for</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r purposes that can be used <strong>for</strong> this purpose willallow <strong>for</strong> creative funds packag<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>the</strong> watershedlevel, without need <strong>for</strong> additional state funds.DialogueDialogue with water conservation practitioners canshow whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>stream flows could be part of <strong>the</strong>irgoals, and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y th<strong>in</strong>k <strong>the</strong>y’re already achiev<strong>in</strong>genvironmental benefits. Encourag<strong>in</strong>g dialogue <strong>in</strong>any watershed with <strong>in</strong>stream flow needs can avoidconflict and encourage cooperative solutions.57 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
Promis<strong>in</strong>g Opportunities <strong>for</strong> Forg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong>: ConclusionPractical possibilities <strong>for</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g waterefficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts and <strong>in</strong>stream flows,with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g bas<strong>in</strong> context, exist <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>. Given a streamstretch with clearly identified environmentalbenefit from improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows, and a realisticopportunity <strong>for</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency, will<strong>in</strong>gpartnership is <strong>the</strong> first and most critical characteristicof success; will<strong>in</strong>g partners generally can build <strong>the</strong>bridges needed to overcome o<strong>the</strong>r challenges.Creative fund<strong>in</strong>g, a def<strong>in</strong>ed legal path, and shorttermor pilot ef<strong>for</strong>ts are o<strong>the</strong>r common elementsof success.Opportunities can take <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of:An upstream farmer or rancher work<strong>in</strong>g with anonprofit work<strong>in</strong>g to improve streamflows;A community with a direct connection to astream stretch;An agricultural district seek<strong>in</strong>g to modernize itswater management systems <strong>in</strong> a way that canalso reduce or relocate diversions from a river;Three-way arrangements <strong>for</strong> water use, such astrades among agriculture, streamflow, and agovernment environmental agency;A nonprofit with strong local relationships will<strong>in</strong>gto take <strong>the</strong> lead; andMultiple partners collaborat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a watershedthat perceive an upcom<strong>in</strong>g environmentalimperative, whe<strong>the</strong>r physical or regulatory.Different <strong>in</strong>centives tailored to motivate <strong>the</strong> varioustypes of will<strong>in</strong>g partners are needed to take advantageof promis<strong>in</strong>g opportunities. Communities, watersuppliers, agricultural water districts, farmers andranchers, nonprofit organizations, and governmentpartners may all respond to different approaches.With a champion or catalyst, will<strong>in</strong>g partners, and alocally tailored approach, more efficient water usecan be l<strong>in</strong>ked to improved <strong>in</strong>stream flows <strong>in</strong> areas of<strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>.Photo CreditsPage 4Page 7Page 28Page 32Page 33Page 47Page 58Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>—John Jengo, Dow<strong>in</strong>gtown, PA,American RiversColorado River bas<strong>in</strong> map—U.S. Bureau of ReclamationGrand Valley, CO—Colorado River Recovery ProgramBadger Creek, ID—Trout UnlimitedRussian River, CA—Sonoma County <strong>Water</strong> AgencyColorado River bas<strong>in</strong>—Eric H<strong>in</strong>son, American RiversFossil Creek, AZ—American Rivers<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>58
Appendix 1Western <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong>-<strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong> Experience:Cases ConsideredA wide rang<strong>in</strong>g search <strong>for</strong> practical experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>western U.S. l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency and <strong>in</strong>streamflow protection yielded over 40 candidate casestudies, from <strong>in</strong>dividual on-farm water efficiencymeasures to major city-wide conservation programsand large-scale agricultural district efficiencies. While<strong>the</strong>re are many successful water efficiency programswest-wide, if a program had no l<strong>in</strong>k to <strong>in</strong>stream flow,however <strong>in</strong>direct, we did not <strong>in</strong>clude it. Likewise, weopted <strong>for</strong> cases with demonstrable results, ra<strong>the</strong>rthan models and policies that are as yet untested.We considered several o<strong>the</strong>r factors as well <strong>in</strong> ourselections:Does <strong>the</strong> project appear likely to achieve its<strong>in</strong>tended purpose?Does it seem transferable to <strong>the</strong> Colorado bas<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong> terms of climate, geography, culture or o<strong>the</strong>rimportant factors?Will <strong>the</strong> project provide a significant amount ofwater <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream use and/or provide an importantenvironmental benefit?Are <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvements protectedlegally or only <strong>in</strong> practice?Does <strong>the</strong> project have landowner and/or localsupport? Is implementation accepted by <strong>the</strong>broader community? Has significant oppositionbeen overcome?Is <strong>the</strong> project perceived to be <strong>in</strong>novative?Does <strong>the</strong> list as a whole <strong>in</strong>clude a diverse rangeof project types?Cases Similar to Case Studies Included<strong>in</strong> Chapter 2Sunnyside Irrigation District, Yakima River, WALower Yellowstone Irrigation District,Yellowstone River, MTLos Mol<strong>in</strong>os Mutual <strong>Water</strong> Company, Mill Creek,CABarker Ranch, Yakima River, WAColumbia Bas<strong>in</strong> Project Irrigation Districts (East,South, and Qu<strong>in</strong>cy), Columbia River, WA/ORLittle Bear Creek, Cache Valley, UTN<strong>in</strong>e Mile Creek, Tributary to Little Clark Fork, MTBadger Creek, Little Lost River dra<strong>in</strong>age, IDRock Creek, North Fork Blackfoot dra<strong>in</strong>age, MTTucson, AZ, Conserve to Enhance programMono Lake, CAAmerican River, Sacramento <strong>Water</strong> ForumAgreement, CACases Described <strong>in</strong> Municipal <strong>Efficiency</strong>Resource SectionAlbuquerque, NMSanta Fe, NMSeattle, WA59 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>
O<strong>the</strong>r Cases ConsideredWalla Walla River, WALehman Farm, Methow River, WA—only water leas<strong>in</strong>gIpswich River Bas<strong>in</strong>, MA—return flow issues,east coast exampleAgnew Irrigation District, Dungeness River, WA—project perceived as too different fromColorado bas<strong>in</strong>Middle Fork John Day River, OR—only a leaseNaches-Selah Irrigation District, Yakima RiverBas<strong>in</strong>, WA—not yet implementedFresno Irrigation District Canal ImprovementProject, CA—no <strong>in</strong>stream flow benefits identifiedEastern Municipal <strong>Water</strong> District reuse/recharge,CA—not yet implemented, limited or no <strong>in</strong>streamflow benefitUte Mounta<strong>in</strong> Ute Tribe Farm & Ranch Enterprises,SCADA Project—no identified <strong>in</strong>stream flowbenefitSanta Fe “Liv<strong>in</strong>g River” Fund, Santa Fe River, NM—no direct <strong>in</strong>stream flow improvements, noconnection to water efficiencyFort Coll<strong>in</strong>s/Cache La Poudre, CO—not yetimplemented, possible <strong>in</strong>stream flow benefithasn’t been def<strong>in</strong>ed yetHidalgo County Irrigation District #6 Canal L<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g,TX—not implemented yet, smaller scale thansimilar Government Canal, Sunnyside projectsAshland, OR—not l<strong>in</strong>ked to <strong>in</strong>stream flowSan Gregorio <strong>Water</strong>shed, Central Coast, CA—uses w<strong>in</strong>ter storage, not conservation, to improvesummer flowsBoise-United <strong>Water</strong>, ID—no identified <strong>in</strong>streamflow improvementsSanta Ana River, CA—conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts do notbenefit flowsSou<strong>the</strong>rn Nevada <strong>Water</strong> Authority, Virg<strong>in</strong> River,NV—ma<strong>in</strong> purpose to expand supply, not improve<strong>in</strong>stream flowsBackwash Recycl<strong>in</strong>g Project, Bella Vista <strong>Water</strong>District, CA—doesn’t meet def<strong>in</strong>ition of“efficiency”<strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>60
Appendix 2Interactive Workshop on <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong><strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> In <strong>Practice</strong>To provide <strong>in</strong>put <strong>in</strong>to this project, <strong>in</strong> June 2011 <strong>the</strong>project team ga<strong>the</strong>red over 30 experts <strong>in</strong> variousaspects of Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> water management<strong>for</strong> a one-day hands-on work<strong>in</strong>g session <strong>in</strong> Denver.The two goals of <strong>the</strong> workshop were to help <strong>the</strong>project team assess <strong>the</strong> practical opportunities <strong>for</strong>voluntary, <strong>in</strong>centive-based projects that l<strong>in</strong>k waterefficiency and improved streamflows <strong>in</strong> ColoradoRiver tributaries, and to identify strategies to addresssocial, political, economic, and legal hurdles <strong>in</strong>specific areas of <strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>.The workshop was not <strong>in</strong>tended as a stakeholdermeet<strong>in</strong>g; as a result, not every <strong>in</strong>terest group <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong> was <strong>in</strong>cluded. Attendees came fromthroughout <strong>the</strong> river bas<strong>in</strong>, and from state agencies,nonprofit organizations, municipal water utilities,water districts, and universities. A Deschutes RiverConservancy representative gave a lunchtimepresentation on how water efficiency contributed toimproved streamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Deshutes River bas<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong> Oregon. A separate workshop report was not prepared;workshop <strong>in</strong>put is reflected <strong>in</strong> this report.The workshop was positive and thoughtful; very fewmajor disagreements surfaced. A positive skepticismprevailed, with <strong>the</strong> predom<strong>in</strong>ant attitude that thisl<strong>in</strong>kage could work, <strong>the</strong> issues be<strong>in</strong>g where and how.Participants identified many challenges, especiallylegal and physical, yet often expressed <strong>the</strong>m as<strong>in</strong>centives. Will<strong>in</strong>gness to take action emerged as <strong>the</strong>number one characteristic of success, ahead even offund<strong>in</strong>g. Several types of approaches <strong>for</strong> cooperativepartners were discussed.Interactive sessions and breakout discussion groupsfocused on <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water efficiencyand improved streamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado Riverbas<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> types of <strong>in</strong>centives that might motivatedifferent types of will<strong>in</strong>g partners, types and characteristicsof a situation that provide <strong>the</strong> best chance<strong>for</strong> a successful project, practical opportunities <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> bas<strong>in</strong>, and strategies to pursue <strong>the</strong>se possibleopportunities.Agenda9:30 a.m. Group <strong>in</strong>troductions, project summary,and legal context10:00 a.m. Breakout on challenges <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ColoradoRiver bas<strong>in</strong>11:00 a.m. Groups report back; full group discussionon challenges and <strong>in</strong>centives12:00 p.m. Work<strong>in</strong>g lunch, presentation onDeschutes River Bas<strong>in</strong>1:15 p.m. Breakout on possible practicalopportunities2:00 p.m. Groups report back briefly; full groupdiscussion on practical opportunities3:00 p.m. Full group discussion on possiblestrategies4:15 p.m. What did we hear today?4:30 p.m. Clos<strong>in</strong>gSelected Breakout Group DiscussionQuestions1. What are <strong>the</strong> top 2–3 challenges you see <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>gwater efficiency and improved streamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong> and its tributaries? What canbe done about <strong>the</strong>se challenges, and who woulddo it, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> short term?2. What 2–3 <strong>in</strong>centives seem most important to you<strong>in</strong> employ<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts to improvestreamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>? Whattypes of <strong>in</strong>centives might motivate different typesof will<strong>in</strong>g partners: communities, water suppliers,agricultural water districts, farmers and ranchers,nonprofit organizations, government partners?3. What 2–3 characteristics of a situation do you th<strong>in</strong>kwould make <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> greatest likelihood of success<strong>in</strong> employ<strong>in</strong>g water efficiency ef<strong>for</strong>ts to improvestreamflows <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Colorado River bas<strong>in</strong>? Whattypes of situations, geographic and o<strong>the</strong>r, mightprovide <strong>the</strong> most opportunity?4. What 2–3 practical possibilities do you see, with<strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g bas<strong>in</strong> context?5. What 2–3 strategies would you use to pursue <strong>the</strong>sepossible opportunities?6. How would you approach work<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> eachstate’s water rights framework?61 <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Efficiency</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Instream</strong> <strong>Flow</strong>: <strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>L<strong>in</strong>k</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Practice</strong>