I found a link to this story on Aquafornia this morning and was intrigued enough to read the article - even though I was skeptical. Obviously the first thing that jumps out at you is the title - "Watering fields in California boosts rainfall in Southwest". Makes you think that someone has possibly confirmed a link between the two. But then you read the first line in the story and that claim is qualified with "a new computer simulation suggests." So it turns out that using an appropriately scaled atmospheric circulation model and making some assumptions about excess evaporation occurring in the Central Valley of California in the summer it appears it just might be possible that some of the summer thunderstorms over the southwest could be modestly enhanced by said excess evaporation.
Some thoughts, musings, and discussion on the intersection between water supply and land use policies, mostly focused on Southern Arizona.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Can Reclamation Change its Ways?
There has been lots of chatter in the blogosphere and elsewhere about the recently released Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). This really is a ground-breaking study in many ways: it enshrines the likelihood that climate change is likely to have an impact on water supplies in the basin in the future; it acknowledges that the lower basin is already out of kilter in the supply vs. demand equation, and is highly dependent on deliveries of excess water from the upper basin to continue meeting that demand; and probably biggest of all, it largely acknowledges that the era of large public works projects to address water needs is probably over.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Enhancing the Management of Arizona's Aquifers - an Alternate Proposal to ADWR
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) recently floated a proposal to change the formula is uses to grant groundwater credits to entities that artificially recharge renewable water into aquifers as a way to permit additional groundwater pumping. The state recharge program is a somewhat complicated scheme that I can't explain in detail right here, but you can get lots of other information at ADWR's website here. This proposal is being made as part of the 4th Management Plan process - a once-a-decade planning exercise that is intended to get Arizona's Active Management Areas to Safe Yield by 2025.
The gist of the proposal is that it would reward entities that locate their recharging activities closer to where they are actually pumping out groundwater. A worthwhile endeavor to be sure.
The gist of the proposal is that it would reward entities that locate their recharging activities closer to where they are actually pumping out groundwater. A worthwhile endeavor to be sure.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Update on ADWR NIA Reallocation Process
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has posted the comments received on their proposed process for reallocation of the 96,000 acre-feet of Non-Indian Ag (NIA) water in the CAP system. Several of the comments echo my points (with additional elaboration) on some of the failings of the proposed process. Unfortunately, no one else suggested that a market mechanism for allocation would be appropriate. Of course all the other comments were from actual stakeholders who might want to be granted rights to some of this water. I acknowledge that a market is probably not in their self-interest. I think it's not inconceivable, though, that some of the industrial users (mining companies) might be willing to get behind the idea, as they would be likely to come out ahead of many of the municipal users - at least in the short-term. But in strict dollar terms they are probably better off with an administrative allocation process.
The one idea that no one seemed to get behind was the proposal by CAP to impose a reliability charge with this water to establish a fund that would attempt to firm up this somewhat unreliable supply. That was certain to be a tough sell. Seems like most users would rather deal with supply reliability issues on their own. I'll try to update again when ADWR posts the responses to the comments received, but it will likely take a while.
The one idea that no one seemed to get behind was the proposal by CAP to impose a reliability charge with this water to establish a fund that would attempt to firm up this somewhat unreliable supply. That was certain to be a tough sell. Seems like most users would rather deal with supply reliability issues on their own. I'll try to update again when ADWR posts the responses to the comments received, but it will likely take a while.
Friday, November 30, 2012
A few updates
If you check out the list of other blogs to the right you'll notice I did a bit of updating. Gone are Waterblogged and On the Public Record (very sad to see this one go). They just don't update that often anymore - and OtPR may be gone for good, I fear. But I added something new - Agua-zona - a new blog by Juliet McKenna, who works for a consulting firm here in Tucson. She's sharp and should bring a lot of good info to her blog. Check it out when you have a chance.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
ADWR Water Allocation Process
One month ago, the Arizona Dept. of Water Resources (ADWR) held a public meeting to announce that they were beginning the process to allocate (or reallocate) approximately 96,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water delivered via the Central Arizona Project (CAP). This is water that was made available by the big Arizona Water Settlement that was crafted almost 10 years ago, but under the language of the act was not available for reallocation until 2014.
As you might expect from the state agency responsible for management of the state's water they have proposed a tightly controlled administrative process for deciding who should get the water and how much they should be entitled to. Oh, and there are also some costs associated with this water. But as is typically the case, the cost for this water only covers the "costs" of administering the process, then when the recipient takes the water they will pay the "costs" for delivery. There are no "opportunity costs" or "scarcity costs" included. Now admittedly these costs are greater than what has been paid by those who currently possess allocations of Arizona's Colorado River water, but that is all water under the bridge, so to speak. And what the entities who manage to "win" an allocation of this water will get is something slightly less than a continuously assured supply of renewable water.
Because this is water that was relinquished by agricultural contractors it holds a priority within the CAP system that is lower than the standard municipal and industrial allocation. What this means is that when there is a shortage on the Colorado River that impacts Arizona's supplies this water may be unavailable for delivery. ADWR has analyzed the expected reliability of this water and believes that up to 2/3 of this water should be continuously available, depending on the assumptions you use (a summary of their analysis can be found if you click the "presentation" link on the process page).
So far that's all well and good. Where I have a problem is the whole process they have proposed for determining who is "worthy" of receiving an allocation of this water. This is what administrative agencies always try to do and they never seem to get it right, especially in situations where you are dealing with a scarce resource. People try to game the system, assumptions have to be made about where future demand will reside, and there just tends to be a whole range of normative "calculations" that need to be made to justify the actions of the agency.
I am planning to draft up some comments recommending that they at least try to allocate some of this water via a market-clearing auction (CAP staff proposed something similar as part of the ADD Water process that you can find here - click the link for "ADD Water Program Proposal"). I have no hope that it can all be auctioned off (there are too many bureaucratic hurdles in the way) but it just seems to me that given the year-to-year variability that might be present in at least some of the water available and the well-known superiority of market mechanisms to allocate scarce resources, an auction has to be the best way to ensure that this water is allocated in an equitable and efficient manner. It's a long shot, but someone has to take the first shot.
As you might expect from the state agency responsible for management of the state's water they have proposed a tightly controlled administrative process for deciding who should get the water and how much they should be entitled to. Oh, and there are also some costs associated with this water. But as is typically the case, the cost for this water only covers the "costs" of administering the process, then when the recipient takes the water they will pay the "costs" for delivery. There are no "opportunity costs" or "scarcity costs" included. Now admittedly these costs are greater than what has been paid by those who currently possess allocations of Arizona's Colorado River water, but that is all water under the bridge, so to speak. And what the entities who manage to "win" an allocation of this water will get is something slightly less than a continuously assured supply of renewable water.
Because this is water that was relinquished by agricultural contractors it holds a priority within the CAP system that is lower than the standard municipal and industrial allocation. What this means is that when there is a shortage on the Colorado River that impacts Arizona's supplies this water may be unavailable for delivery. ADWR has analyzed the expected reliability of this water and believes that up to 2/3 of this water should be continuously available, depending on the assumptions you use (a summary of their analysis can be found if you click the "presentation" link on the process page).
So far that's all well and good. Where I have a problem is the whole process they have proposed for determining who is "worthy" of receiving an allocation of this water. This is what administrative agencies always try to do and they never seem to get it right, especially in situations where you are dealing with a scarce resource. People try to game the system, assumptions have to be made about where future demand will reside, and there just tends to be a whole range of normative "calculations" that need to be made to justify the actions of the agency.
I am planning to draft up some comments recommending that they at least try to allocate some of this water via a market-clearing auction (CAP staff proposed something similar as part of the ADD Water process that you can find here - click the link for "ADD Water Program Proposal"). I have no hope that it can all be auctioned off (there are too many bureaucratic hurdles in the way) but it just seems to me that given the year-to-year variability that might be present in at least some of the water available and the well-known superiority of market mechanisms to allocate scarce resources, an auction has to be the best way to ensure that this water is allocated in an equitable and efficient manner. It's a long shot, but someone has to take the first shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)