Index
Abiquiu Reservoir, 165
Acequias
cultural values and, 257
prior appropriation doctrine and tradition of, 51, 261
transfers from, 172
water rights ownership within, 173–174
Ad hoc negotiation, 72, 102–103
Agricultural conservation, 263–264
Agriculture.
See also Irrigated agriculture
appurtenancy restrictions to protect, 77
in Colorado, 154
cultural values regarding, 168
in New Mexico, 167–168
overirrigation of, 230
Ak-Chin Indian settlements, 210
Alaska, 260
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 169, 170
All American Canal, 238, 243, 246
Alpinedecree, 125–127
American Indians.
See Indian communities/reservations;
Tribal governments
American Water Development, Inc., 28
Amity Canal Irrigation Company, 61
Animas-La Plata Project, 178
Appropriative rights
creation of system of, 70
explanation of, 219–220
Appurtenancy rules, 77–78
Area-of-origin impacts
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 10–11, 49–50, 250–251, 257–259
in rural communities, 46, 49–50
Area-of-origin interests
in Colorado, 158
representation of, 258
state laws and, 78–79
Area-of-origin protection
in Arizona, 208–209
in Colorado, 143
components of, 259
discussion of, 115–116
Arizona.
See also Central Arizona case study
conservation efforts in, 87, 263–264
ground water policy in, 25, 86, 194, 196, 200–202
public interest requirements in, 80
state laws in, 194, 196, 200–201, 250
water leases in, 30
water rights purchases in, 29
Arizona v. California,
Arkansas River Basin
population in, 154
process of transfers in, 157
setting of, 140
transmountain diversion projects in, 144
water quality problems in, 60–61
Arkansas River Valley (Colorado), 49, 50
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
influence on West of, 87
policy of, 102
and Two Forks Project, 152, 153
Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, 244–245
Beneficial use doctrine, 138
Berrenda Mesa Water District, 225–228, 231
Big Horn, 94
Bonding capacity, 46–47
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), 187
Booth–Orchard Canal Company, 151
Bosque del Apache, 165
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
projects of, 202
Pyramid Lake Tribe contact with, 126
Bureau of Land Management, 91
Bureau of Reclamation
activity in Arizona, 198–199, 201–202
activity in California, 214, 217, 218, 231, 240
activity in Nevada, 123–125, 131
activity in New Mexico, 177–178
activity in Washington State, 185, 188
influence on West of, 87
management emphasis of, 135
role of, 35, 88, 89, 91, 193, 224
Busk–Ivanhoe Ditch Company, 151
California.
See also Central Valley (California) case study;
Imperial Valley (California) case study
area-of-origin protection law in, 78, 115
dry year option arrangements in, 32
encouragement of water salvage in, 82, 83
environmental impact assessment in, 87, 99
ground water law in, 220
overview of water situation in, 213–214
public interest requirements in, 80
salvaged water transfers in, 33
transfer activity in, 221–225
transfer process in, 230–231
use of public trust doctrine, 101
water allocation in, 236–237
water institutions in, 218–221
water rights sales in, 29–30
California Aqueduct, 217
California Development Company, 236, 238
California Environmental Quality Act, 87
Case studies. See individual states;
Water transfer evaluation
Central Arizona case study, 6, 62–63, 114.
See also Arizona
background information for, 194, 196
conclusions regarding, 210–211
impacts of surface and ground water transfers in, 204–209
impacts of transfers of Indian water rights in, 209–210
impacts of transfers of sewage effluent in, 209
setting of, 195–200
and urban-rural needs, 14
water institutions discussed in, 200–204
Central Arizona Project (CAP), 199–200, 202–203, 205, 206
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), 201
Central Valley (California), 251
Central Valley (California) case study, 6, 62–63, 114–115.
See also California
area-of-origin impacts in, 225–228
conclusions regarding, 230–232
environmental impacts in, 228–230
overview of, 213–214
setting of, 214–219
water institutions discussed in, 218–225
Central Valley Project (CVP), 88, 216–218, 221, 222
Central Weld County Water District, 149
Chaffey, George, 235
Clean Water Act, 72, 84, 85, 91, 102, 128, 129, 153, 209
Climate change, 25
Coachella Valley, 243, 245, 246
Coachella Valley Water District, 33, 234, 239, 243
Cochiti Reservoir, 165
Colorado
amount of transfers in, 40
application approval rate in, 43
area-of-origin protection in, 143, 149
conclusions regarding transfers in, 115–116, 157–160
conservancy districts in, 97, 98.
See also various conservancy districts in Colorado
instream protections in, 20, 65, 81–82, 156–158
land use decisions in, 86
prior appropriation doctrine in, 137–138, 146, 147, 260
transfer applications filed in, 40
transfer costs in, 43
transfers in northeastern, 147–150
transfers in southeastern, 147, 150–151
transfers of cropland in, 46
water exchanges in, 33
water leases in, 30
water quality issues in, 60–61, 158, 258
water rights purchases in, 27, 28
Colorado–Big Thompson Project (C-BT), 143–145, 148–149, 160
Colorado Canal Company, 150
Colorado Front Range–Arkansas River Valley case study, 6, 62, 114
Arkansas River Basin project in, 144–145
background information for, 137–139
Colorado–Big Thompson project and Windy Gap project in, 143–144
conclusions regarding transfers in, 157–159
conclusions regarding water resource planning and management in, 159–160
current transfers and marketing in, 147–151
environmental impacts in, 155–157
future transbasin diversions discussed in, 151–153
infrastructural differences between projects in, 145–146
institutional and legal considerations involved in, 146–147
setting of, 139–143
socioeconomic impacts in, 154–155
Colorado Front Range (CFR)
setting of, 139–140
water allocation in, 137–138, 151–152
water conservancy districts in, 141
Colorado River.
See also Colorado Front Range–Arkansas River Valley case study
basin-of-origin protection for, 78
in Colorado Front Range, 138
flood of 1905, 244
in Imperial Valley, 33, 236–238, 242–247
supplying Arizona, 194, 199, 238.
See also Central Arizona Project (CAP)
Colorado River Compact, 60, 142–143, 238
Columbia River, 19, 92, 182, 184, 192, 204–205
Committee conclusions and recommendations
on area-of-origin impacts, 10–11, 257–259
on cost of transfers, 10, 251–252, 256–257
on environmental impacts, 11–12, 258, 260–261, 264
on federal project water transfers, 13–14, 266–267
on public interest considerations, 11, 259–260
on state and tribal authority, 9, 254–255
on third party interests, 4–5, 8, 255–257
on transfers on Indian communities, 12, 262–263
on unique Indian and Hispanic interests, 12, 261–262
on water conservation and salvage, 12–13, 263–265
on water quality-water quantity and surface-ground water issues, 13, 265–266
on water transfer opportunities, 2, 4, 6–9, 252–254
Committee on Western Water Management, 35–36
Comprehensive planning, 72, 99
Congress, U.S.
committee conclusions and recommendations for, 261, 266, 267
policy for resale of federal project water, 13, 266, 267
role in transfer of Indian water off reservations, 95, 96
role in Truckee–Carson water rights settlement, 124
view of federal water transfers, 90–91
Conservation. See Soil conservation;
Water conservation
Contra Costa Water district (CCWD), 61
Costs See Transaction costs
Cultural values
regarding agriculture, 168
regarding water, 51, 163, 176, 250–251
Damage avoided approach, 61
Department of the Interior, U.S., 13, 122, 224, 266
Operating Criteria and Procedures, 127, 130, 131, 135
Derby Dam, 123
Desert Water Agency, 245
Drainage water
in Imperial Valley, 240
quality issues and, 85
Drought planning, 159–160
Dry year option arrangements, 32
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 61
water exchange proposals by, 33
Economic impacts
felt by third parties, 39, 258
of streamflows, 54
of transfers in rural communities, 45–50
Ecosystems.
See also Wetlands
impact of transfers on, 52–54, 260
preservation of, 56
Effluent, 85.
See also Sewage effluent
Elephant Butte Reservoir, 165–167
Endangered species
constraints imposed by protection of, 91
due to habitat reduction, 54, 123
in Nevada, 54, 123, 127, 130–132, 134
protections in New Mexico for, 176–178
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 91, 127, 130, 190
Environmental Defense Fund, 65, 130–131, 246
Environmental impacts
in Central Valley (California), 228–230, 232
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 11–12, 258, 260–261, 264
and effect of instream flows.
See Instream flows
elements involved in, 56
felt by third parties, 39, 258
of retiring irrigated farmland, 48– 49
state legislation dealing with, 44, 87
of surface and ground water transfers, 204–209
Environmental interests
Environmental legislation
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 11–12, 258, 260–261, 264
federal, 91–92
restrictive nature of, 44
state, 84–87
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standards for effluents, 209
and Two Forks Project, 91, 153
veto power of, 91
Estes Park, 149
Ethnic communities
effect of transfers on, 51, 110
legal protections for, 51–52
Fallon Indian Reservation, 123, 127
Federal government
committee conclusions and recommendations for, 13–14, 266–267
reserved rights and, 92–96
role in environmental protection, 260–261
role in water transfers, 35
Federal legislation
dealing with environmental issues, 44, 91–92, 119–120
dealing with Indian water rights, 92–96
dealing with water quality, 84
reclamation, 87–91
Federal project water
Congress and, 90–91
policies regarding, 13–14, 266–267
Federal taxpayers, 111
Fernley wetlands, 129
Fiscal impacts of rural transfers, 46–48
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S., 91, 133, 187
Fish protection
in Nevada, 123, 127, 130–132, 134
in Washington State, 188–190, 192–193
Fort Lyons Canal Company, 60–61
Freemont, John C., 122
Governments.
See Federal government;
State governments;
Tribal governments
Green Mountain Reservoir (Colorado), 30
Ground water
appropriative and correlative rights to, 220
in California, 220
interrelationship between surface and, 13, 39, 265
restrictions on new pumping of, 25
social and environmental impact of transfers of, 204–209
Ground Water Management Act of 1980 (Arizona), 115, 194, 196, 200–204, 206, 211, 250
Ground Water Replenishment Act (Arizona), 211
Ground Water Transportation Act (Arizona), 211
Heron Reservoir, 165
Hispanic communities
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding interests of, 12, 261–262
effect of transfers on, 155
establishment of historical or cultural zones for, 262
in New Mexico, 162–163, 250–251
special status of, 51
water use and allocation systems of, 261
Homestake II, 152
Hoover Dam, 238
Idaho
instream flow appropriations held by state agencies in, 20
public interest considerations in, 80, 260
restrictions on new ground water pumping in, 25
water bank prices in, 31
Impact assessment
to improve water law and policy, 99
role of, 72
Imperial Irrigation District (IID), 33, 64, 82–84, 234, 237–243, 246, 263, 264
Imperial Valley (California) case study, 6, 64, 115
background information for, 234
conclusions regarding, 247
future agreements and, 244–247
legal background of, 238–240
setting of, 234–238
third party impacts on, 243–244
transfer negotiations in, 240–241
Water Conservation Agreements of 1989 and, 242–243
Indian communities/reservations.
See also Tribal governments;
various tribes
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding
factors regarding transfers on, 53, 262–263
historical or cultural zones for, 262
in New Mexico, 162–163, 174–176
power to influence water allocation process, 119–120
reserved rights and, 92–96
as senior water rights holders, 53
special status of, 51
third party impacts and, 12, 110, 261–262
water use and allocation systems of, 261
Instream flows
benefits of, 59–60
in California, 229
in Colorado, 155–157
nonuser values generated by, 55, 56
quantification of, 58–59
recreational uses for, 54–56
U.S claims for, 186–187
water quality benefits from, 57, 59
Instream uses
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 251, 254–255
discussion of, 116–117
Intermountain Power Project (IPP) (Utah), 66–67
Interstate transfers
committee conclusions regarding, 19, 254
intrastate vs., 19
Intrastate transfers, 19
Investment, water as, 27–29
Irrigated agriculture
amount of water used for, 3, 24
demand and availability of water for, 34, 50, 249
early use of, 21–23
economic and fiscal impact of transfers out of, 45–48
environmental impact of transfers out of, 48–49
impact of transfers out of, 39
Lahontan Valley wetlands and, 120
legislation regarding transfers out of, 250
nature of transfers out of, 44, 46
Irrigation, flood, 236
Irrigation colonies, 22
Jemez Reservoir, 165
Jicarilla Apache Reservation, 175
Kern County Water Agency, 225–228
Kern Water Bank, 245
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, 60
Kesterson Reservoir, 229
La Hacienda, Inc., 245
La Paz County, Arizona, 46–47, 208
Lahontan Valley wetlands, 120, 121, 130–131
Lake Tahoe, 124–125
Lake Tahoe Dam, 125
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 12, 261
Land use legislation, 86
Legislation.
See also Federal legislation;
State legislation
background of water transfer, 70–72
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 9, 11–13, 255–257, 263–265
environmental impact considerations in, 11–12, 44
inadequacies of transfer, 26–27
instream flow, 80–82, 156, 177
options for improving, 98–99, 101–104
originating from colonial Spanish law, 166
special district, 96–98
third parties protections in, 42, 44
Litigation, 256
Local governments, 39
Matheson, Scott M., 2
McCarran Amendment, 186
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) (California)
exchange activities by, 33, 34
Imperial Irrigation District and, 64, 82–84, 234, 238–247, 263, 264
involvement in transfers of salvaged water, 32
Mexico, 244
Mexico–United States Free Trade Agreement, 244
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 165, 167, 170–171, 177
Minimum flow, 58
Mono Lake (California), 57, 59
Montana
transfer legislation in, 79
water leases in, 30
Nambe Falls Dam, 177–178
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,
National Environmental Policy Act, 91, 99, 135
National Marine Fisheries Service, 187
National Park Service, 91
Native Americans.
See Indian communities/reservations;
Tribal governments
Nature Conservancy, 65, 131, 133
Navajo communities, 175
Nevada.
See also Truckee–Carson Basins (Nevada) case study
amount of transfers in, 40
instream flow appropriations held by state agencies in, 20
no-water-metering policy of, 128
public interest requirements in, 79
New Mexico.
See also Northern New Mexico case study
allocation traditions in, 162–163
amount of transfers in, 40
application approval rate in, 44
applications filed in, 40
average PITCs incurred in, 43
effect of modern water law on minority communities in, 51
public interest requirements in, 79–80
restrictions on new ground water pumping in, 25
types of transfers in, 168–171
water rights prices in, 29, 169
New Mexico v. Aamodt,
New River, 244
Newlands, Francis G., 122
Newlands Project, 65, 120–124, 126–132, 134
No injury rule
committee conclusions regarding, 253
problems with use of, 188
as restriction on transfers, 71
North Dakota, 40
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), 97, 142, 145–147, 149, 150, 152, 157, 160
Northern New Mexico case study, 6.
See also New Mexico
background of, 162–163
conclusions of, 178
economic setting of, 167–171
impact of transfers on communities in, 176
institutional and legal setting of, 166–167
instream flows and, 176–178
physical setting of, 163–165
special needs of ethnic community and, 14
type of transfers in, 171–174
Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, 92
Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP), 127, 130, 131, 135
Oregon
encouragement of water salvage in, 82–84
instream protection program in, 265
Orr Ditchdecree, 125–127
Otero Canal Company, 151
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 187
Painted Rocks Reservoir (Montana), 30
Palo Verde Irrigation District, 234, 239, 245, 246
Pecos River, 67
Plan de Pitic, 166
Planet Ranch, 207
Platte River Greenway Foundation, 156–157
Platte River Power Authority, 149
Policy-induced transaction costs (PITCs), 43, 44
Powell, John Wesley, 122
Powell Survey of 1868, 23
Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources (Water Resource Council), 106, 107
“Principles Governing Voluntary Water Transactions That Involve or Affect Facilities Owned or Operated by the Department of the Interior ” (DOI), 89
Prior appropriation doctrine
background of, 70–71
in Colorado, 137–138, 146, 147, 260
problems with, 191
and tradition of acequias, 51, 261
in Truckee–Carson Basins, 125
Property rights, 19–20, 73, 74
Public interest review
to improve water law and policy, 98–99
past uses of, 75
role of, 72
state laws and, 11, 44, 79–80, 253
Public interests
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 11, 259–260
expanded definition of, 178, 180
Public trust administration, 11, 260
Public trust doctrine
allocation role of, 192
for environmental protection use, 207, 229
Pueblo Lands Act of 1924, 176
Pyramid Lake, 117, 120–122, 126–130
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, 63, 122, 123, 126–130, 133
Pyramid Lake Reservation, 129–130
Reclamation Act of 1902, 88, 122, 240
Reclamation policy, 35
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 230
Recreation
effect of transfers on, 56, 57
streamflows as benefit for, 54, 55
Reid, Frank, 129
Reservations.
See Indian communities/reservations;
Tribal governments
Revegetation, 48–49
Rifkind, Simon, 240
Rio Grande Compacts of 1938, 166–167
Rio Grande River, 163–165.
See also Northern New Mexico case study
Rio Grande Underground Water Basin, 170
Rocky Ford Ditch Company, 151
Rocky Ford Highline Canal Company, 151
Rural communities
area-of-origin protections for, 49–50
effect of urban water demand on, 139
environmental impacts of retiring irrigated farmland in, 48–49
impact of transfers on, 45–48, 110–111
protection of, 66
transfers effecting Colorado, 154–155, 158
transfers in Arizona, 205
Russian thistle (Tumbleweeds), 48, 207
Salt River Project (SRP), 199, 201, 202
Salton Sea, 64, 84, 240, 244, 246, 247
Salvaged water transfers, 32–33.
See also Water salvage
San Carlos Irrigation Project, 199, 202
San Joaquin Valley, 85, 214, 216, 229, 230, 244, 246.
See also Central Valley (California) case study
San Juan–Chama Project, 165, 169, 170, 173
San Juan River, 165
Sangre de Cristo Water Company, 169
Santa Fe River, 169
Saved Water Act (Washington State), 190
Secondary succession, 48–49
Secretary of Interior, 13–14
Seven Party Agreement of 1931, 239, 241
Sewage effluent
impacts of transfers of, 209
treatment of, 129
as waste water, 128
water rights status of, 265
Sierra Pacific Power, 128, 130
Sleeper case, 172
Snake River, 64
Social impacts
felt by third parties, 39, 258
of surface and ground water transfers, 204–205
of transfers out of irrigated agriculture, 47, 49
Soil conservation, 87
South Platte River Basin, 140, 142, 151
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (SCWCD), 140, 144–147
Southern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 157
Stampede Reservoir, 125, 127, 128, 130–132
State engineers, 74–75
State governments
authority and responsibility of, 9, 254–255, 258, 259, 262, 266
role in environmental protection, 260–261
and role of third parties in decisionmaking process, 14
water policy of, 41
water quality management by, 13
State legislation.
See also Legislation
appurtenancy restrictions in, 77– 78
basin-of-origin protection in, 78–79
constraints on special districts by, 97–98
dealing with environmental impact, 44, 87
dealing with Indian use of water on reservations, 263
dealing with water quality, 84–86
historical use limitations in, 76–77
instream protections in, 80–82
land use and, 86
no injury rule and, 73, 75#8211;76, 253
overview of, 73
public interest review and, 11, 79–80, 253
soil conservation and, 87
water salvage issue and, 82–84
State Water Project (SWP) (California), 217, 221–223, 225, 227, 228, 245
States, transfers within or between, 19
Stillwater National Wildlife Management Area, 124, 130, 131, 134
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, 65, 117, 127, 133
Streamflows.See Instream flows
Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Project, 183
Supreme Court, U.S.
on allocation of waters between Nevada and California, 124
on allocation of waters of Colorado River, 142
on federal and Indian reserved rights, 92–94
on state regulation, 88
on transfer regulations and interstate commerce, 79
Surface water
appropriative rights to, 219
interrelationship between ground and, 13, 39, 265
riparian rights to, 219
social and environmental impact of transfers of, 204–209
trade involving surplus, 33–34
Taxation
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 258, 259
effect of transfers on, 63
Taxpayers, as third parties, 111
Texas, 180
Third parties.
See also various third parties
participation in transfer process by, 2, 4, 100–101
and public interest considerations, 11, 259–260
Third party impacts.
See also Area-of-origin impacts;
Environmental impacts
accounting for, 3–4
assessment and mitigation of, 13, 254–257
in Central Arizona, 204–210
in Colorado Front Range–Arkansas River Valley, 154–158
transaction costs and. See Transaction costs from transfers involving federal project water.
of transfers on Indian communities, 12, 261–262
tribal governments ' consideration of, 263
in Yakima Basin, 189–191
Third party interests
need for mechanisms to accommodate, 14–15
transaction costs to address, 252, 256
types of, 109–111
Tieton Reservoir, 183
Tohono O'odham Indian settlements, 210
Transaction costs, 3
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 10, 251–252, 256–257
expectations regarding, 222–223
for making applications, 40, 41
reasons for increased, 25
transfer benefits vs., 18–19, 24
Transaction tax, 258
Transmountain diversion. See Colorado Front Range–Arkansas River Valley case study.
Treaty of 1855, 185
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 176
Tribal governments.
See also Indian communities/reservations
approval and administration of transfers by, 262–263
authority and responsibility of, 9, 254–255, 258, 259, 266
management of water quality by, 13
role in environmental protection, 260–261
and role of third parties in decisionmaking process, 14
Truckee–Carson Basins (Nevada), 29, 114
Truckee–Carson Basins (Nevada) case study
background information on, 119–120
committee views regarding, 251
conclusions regarding, 116, 117, 133–135
as example of diverse interests, 14
initial allocation in, 125–126
recent and planned transfers in, 131–133
setting of, 120–124
tribal interests and endangered species in, 126–128
urban growth in, 128–130
water delivery system in, 124–125
wetland ecosystem maintenance in, 130–131
Truckee–Carson Irrigation District (TCID), 122, 124, 127, 133
Truckee–Carson–Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act, 119, 123, 124, 128, 131
Truckee River Agreement of 1935, 125, 126
Trust water right, 188
Tumbleweeds (Russian thistle), 48, 207
Twin Lakes Project, 144–145
Twin Lakes Reservoir, 150
Two Forks Project, 91, 97, 152–153, 159
U.S. Geological Survey, 41
United States of America v. Alpine Land and Reservoir Co.,
United States of America v. Orr Water Ditch Company,
Upper Snake River Water Bank (Idaho), 31
Urban growth
transfers and, 62
in Truckee Meadows area, 128–130
water needs based on, 25–26
Utah
amount of transfers in, 40
application approval rate in, 44
average PITCs incurred in, 43
dry year option arrangements in, 32
public interest requirements in, 79
restrictions on transfers in, 97
water rights prices in, 29
Voluntary water transfers
committee view of, 249
to instream uses, 251
involuntary vs., 39–40
in rural communities, 49
Washington State.
See also Yakima Basin (Washington)
Water.
See also Ground water;
Surface water
calculations for consumption of, 76–77
changing demands for, 1, 25–27
interrelationship between ground and surface, 13, 39
as investment, 27–29
nature of, 257
payments made with, 67
social and cultural values regarding, 51, 163, 176, 250–251
uses for, 23
Water conservation
in Arizona, 203
committee conclusions and recommendations on, 12–13, 263–265
Water Conservation Agreement of 1989, 240–243, 246
Water exchanges, 33
Water farms
controversial nature of, 196
environmental damage from, 207–208
Water leases
explanation of, 30
Indian communities engaged in, 53, 263
prices of, 30
Water management
assumptions guiding previous, 1–2
measurement of effects of, 107–108
transfers as component of, 253
trends in, 21
Water marketing
benefits of, 3
explanation of, 2–3
Water quality
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 265–266
impact of, 60–62
of irrigated water, 3
relationship between water quantity and, 1, 13, 85, 265
state laws dealing with, 84, 86
streamflows as benefit for, 57, 59–60
Water quantity
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 13, 265–266
involved in transfers, 40, 256
relationship between water quality and, 1, 13, 85, 265
restriction of, 86
Water ranches, 29
Water rights
farm-to-industry sale of, 27
investment in, 27–29
prices of recent purchases of, 27, 29, 128
as property rights, 19–20, 73, 74
for third parties, 4
trust, 188
Water rights holders, 20, 53, 110
Water salvage.
See also Imperial Valley (California) case study
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 12–13, 263–265
explanation of, 32–33
state laws dealing with, 82–84, 160
Water transfer applications
approval rate and approval decisionmaking time for, 40
in Colorado, 43
costs involved in making, 40, 41
Water transfer evaluation.
See also individual case studies
case studies examined for, 6, 111–114
critical issues examined for, 114–118
Water transfer policy
committee conclusions and recommendations regarding, 41, 255–257
discussion of shift in, 41
goals of, 72
options to improve, 98–104
Water transfer process
need for increased efficiency in, 160
participation of third parties in, 2, 4, 100–101
protection of interests in, 72
The Water Transfer Process as a Management Option for Meeting Changing Demands(U.S. Geological Survey), 41
Water transfers.
See also Committee conclusions and recommendations
of agricultural water, 191
area-of-origin impacts of .
See Area-of-origin impacts.
;Area-of-origin protection
balancing efficiency and equity in, 14-15
definition of, 2
discussion of recent, 27, 29-30
effect on federal taxpayers, 63
factors to consider when assessing potential, 7, 113
historical background of, 21-23
off Indian reservations, 95
as opportunities to resolve problems, 64-67
role of state engineer in, 74-75
of salvaged water, 32-33
third party impacts of. See Third party impacts
transaction costs involved in. See Transaction costs
voluntary versus involuntary, 39-40.
See also Voluntarv water transfers
Welton-Mohawk Irrigation Project, 199
Western Governors’ Association, 89
Western Governors’ Association. Water Efficiency Working Group, 89
Western States Water Council, 40
Western Water Rights Management, Inc. (WWRM, Inc.), 28
WESTPAC, 128
Wetlands
impact of transfers on, 53-54, 120
in Nevada, 120, 121, 123-124, 130-131
policies and laws to protect, 91, 260-261
Wildlife management.
See also Fish protection;
Truckee-Carson Basins (Nevada) case study importance of streamflows to, 57, 155-156
under Nevada law, 133
uses of water for, 56
Wind River Reservation, 94
Windy Gap Project, 78, 103, 143, 148-150, 159
Winnemucca Lake, 122
Wyoming
instream flow appropriations held by state agencies in, 20
public interest requirements in, 80
salvaged water transfers in, 32-33
transfer applications filed in, 40
Wyoming Plan, 74
Yakima Basin (Washington) case study, 6, 115
background information for, 182-184
conclusions regarding, 191-193
setting of, 184-189
third party impacts in, 189-191
voluntary transfers in, 251
Yakima Indian Nation, 184-187, 190, 192
Yakima River, 182-184
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, 187, 189
Yuba County Water Agency, 245
Yuma Irrigation District, 240
Yuma Project, 239
Yuma Valley, 236