United States
Environmental Protection
Agmcy
laboratory
! -Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors
in Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control
Volume I
Methodology
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-17i»a
August 1978
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
IN IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume I: Methodology
by
Evan C. Vlachos
Paul C. Huszar
George E. Radosevich
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Warren Trock
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Grant No. R-803572
Project Officer
James P. Law, Jr.
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 7^820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 7^820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessar-
ily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
i i
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: a) investigate
the nature, transport, fate, and management of pollutants in ground water;
b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with soil and
other natural systems; c) develop and demonstrate pollution control tech-
nologies for irrigation return flows; d) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for animal production wastes; e) develop and demonstrate
technologies to prevent, control, or abate pollution from the petroleum
refining and petrochemical industries; and f) develop and demonstrate tech-
nologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations of industrial
wastewaters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA is to
meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and enforce
pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and pro-
vide adequate protection for the American people.
Or »
<&~^ tjtfijiy^
Wi11iam C. Galegar v
Di rector
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
i i i
-------
PREFACE
This report concentrates on the presentation of a process for implement-
ing technical and institutional solutions to the problem of return flow
pollution. This process, under the general title of "Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors in Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control," was
centered around a methodological and pragmatic definition of the problem
and identification and assessment of a wide range of potential solutions for
diverse situations. Four separate but interrelated volumes summarize the
study:
Volume I -- Methodology (Main Report)
Volume II — Yakima Valley Case Study
Volume III — Middle Rio Grande Valley Case Study
Volume IV -- Grand Valley Case Study.
Volume I (the main report) summarizes the overall research approach of
the study; the methodological premises; the nature of the problem; the pro-
cess for identifying and assessing appropriate solutions; and, some general
remarks and conclusions concerning the process of implementation. Volumes
II to IV allow for an in-depth presentation of the approach utilized as well
as specific findings and recommendations relating to the problems of each
case.
The interdisciplinary team has also prepared a separate "executive
summary" which is quite a shortened version and with the help of accom-
panying illustrations attempts to provide in a succinct form the major
findings of the study as well as the proposition involved in the identi-
fication, assessment and evaluation of potential solutions concerning
irrigation return flow.
i v
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study has been to develop an effective process for
Implementing technical and institutional solutions to the problem of return
flow pollution. The process developed: a) defines the problem in terms of
its legal, physical, economic, and social parameters; b) identifies potential
solutions in relation to the parameters of the problem; c) assesses potential
solutions for diverse situations; d) specifies those solutions or groups of
solutions which are the most effective in reducing pollution and are
implementable.
This process is conceptualized in Volume I of the study. The general
results of its application are further presented in three separate volumes
concerning the specific case studies of Yakima Valley (Washington), Middle
Rio Grande Valley (New Mexico and Texas), and Grand Valley (Colorado).
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number R-803572
by Colorado State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period between February 14, 1975
to'November 14, 1977, and work was completed as of May 4, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword I i i
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures vi i
Tables ix
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions .' 7
3. Recommendations 9
k. The Research Approach 11
Methodological Premises 11
Phases of Research 25
The Role of Case Studies 31
5. Nature of the Problem 37
Determination of the Causes and
Significance of the Problem 37
Parameters of Investigation 48
6. Identification of Potential Solutions 53
The Process of Identifying Solutions 53
Types and Range of Proposed Solutions 53
Combination of Solutions 63
7. Assessment of Potential Solutions 6k
"Screening" Solutions 6k
Characteristic Findings (Evaluation of Alternatives) 67
8. The Process of Implementation: Premises and Prospects 104
General Remarks 104
The Difficulties with Implementation of
Controls in Agricultural Pollution 107
The Attributes of Change 109
Innovation, Diffusion and the Implementation of Change. . . . Ill
Building the Basis for Implementation Efforts 115
References. 129
Bibliography 131
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Critical dimensions of problem analysis 13
2 Potential individual and societal incompatibilities
in the implementation process 16
3 Building the basis for Implementation 20
4 Key characteristics of an appropriate solution 21
5 The search for acceptable solutions 22
6 A sequential paradigm for building the
basis for implementation 2k
7 Conceptual framework for proposed research.. 26
8 Specifying the process for building the
basis for implementation 29
9 State water law systems and location of study areas 33
10 State ground water law systems in the western states 35
11 Potential cause of water quality degradation. . . . J»5
12 Phase of irrigation water use 55
13 Present irrigation/pollution relation 56
14 Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market 59
15 Developing and building the basis for implementing
alternative measures for irrigation r-eturn flow
quality control $0
16 A model of the policy implementation process 116
17 Extrinsic attributes of an innovation 119
vi
-------
Number Page
18 Intrinsic attributes of an innovation 120
19 Involvement of social unit during adoption process 122
20 Organizational components 123
21 Factors affecting the adoptive behavior of a
receiving unit 125
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Rationale and Discussion Outline of
Water Quality Problems 66
2 Summary of Technological and Institutional
Alternatives Appropriate to Improvement of
Irrigation Return Flow, Rio Grande Project 68
3 Summary of Technological and Institutional
Alternatives for Salinity Control in Grand Valley 75
k Summary Evaluation of Measures to Improve
Irrigation Return Flow Quality, Yakima Valley 76
5 Initial Approach for Identifying Issues in
Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control 82
6 Yakima Valley Executive Summary 85
7 Middle Rio Grande Valley Executive Summary 89
8 Grand Valley Executive Summary Sk
%
9 San Joaquin Valley Executive Summary 97
10 Problem-Solving Scenarios 108
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the preparation of this report, the authors have received the
cooperation and assistance of a great number of people. The guidance of
Dr. James P. Law, Jr., Project Officer, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, is gratefully acknowledged. Particular thanks are
extended to Hugh Barrett, Jim Layton, Mel Sabey, Steve Smith, and Dennis
Stickley for the laborious hours spent in interviews, library research and
preparation of drafts of the reports.
The authors are deeply indebted to the many farmers, state water
resource agency personnel, and many in their capacity as managers and
directors of irrigation districts and companies in the various states,
who provided invaluable information to the team members during interviews
and in supplying reports and data.
XI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The concern with the quality of our nation's waters is not new. The
"Harbor Pollution Legislation of 1888" and the "Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899" are strong evidence of a long-standing concern for water quality. From
that time until the present, quite a number of legislative enactments have
reaffirmed a national commitment to the control of water pollution and the
enhancement of the water resources of the nation. Included among them are:
- The Oil Pollutio^Act of 192A;
- The Water Pollution Control Act of 19^8 with amendments of 1956;
- The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1961;
- The Water Quality Act of 1965;
- The Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966.
The major emphasis of past legislation has been the control of point
sources of discharge from municipalities and industries, which were highly
visible and much more easily controlled. It is only recently, with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, that pollution prob-
lems associated with agricultural water use are finally addressed as part of
the national legislation. This Act provides the transformation of a concern
from point sources to nonpoint pollution sources, and the most difficult
problem in agricultural water use, namely, irrigated agriculture.
It is obvious from the above that water quality control has become a
broad national objective since the enactment of P.L. 84-600, the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1956. As emphasized, from 1956 until the late 1960's the concern
has been almost entirely upon control of point sources of discharge from
municipalities and industries. Obviously, these elements of pollution could
be easier identified and various legal and economic measures could be de-
signed to induce or compel elimination or reduction of harmful discharges.
Contrasted to this concern, three different conditions have produced a
slow response by state and local officials with regard to agricultural pollu-
tion control programs. The first condition is the relative invisibility of
nonpoint pollution. The second has to do with the more or less localized
nature of the adverse effects from agricultural pollution and the difficulties
of determining injuries in the absence of obvious outfalls. Finally, it is
only recently that a concerted effort by the Federal Government has been
undertaken in order to tackle in some general way the problems of nonpoint
pollution and in interpreting the provisions of a very complex law.
-------
Other than blatant violations (such as direct discharge of animal waste
and chemicals into streams and rivers), control of pollution from agricultural
activities has been noticeably lagging. Agricultural uses of water are con-
trolled by state agencies which, at least in most western states, are primar-
ily concerned with water allocation, distribution and administration. Concern
for beneficial use of water, duty of water use and wastages do not also
include the degradation of return flows from overapplication or misuse of
water.
Agricultural water quality control has recently become a substantive
part of discussions among the various states in the West. Problems ranging
from salinity and chemical degradation, sedimentation and other problems
associated with suspended material have been examined predominantly from a
physical control perspective and technologies have been developed which could
alleviate, greatly 'decrease, or, to a substantial degree, eliminate such
problems.
Although the problems associated with irrigation are much more complex
and have received much less attention and regulation, their importance both
now and in the future becomes evident if one is to examine briefly the role
of irrigated agriculture in the United States. Approximately 56 million
acres of farm land are currently under irrigation in the United States, with
^6.3 million irrigated in 1967, about a 23 percent increase in a ten-year
period (Irrigation Journal, 1976). Irrigated agriculture is vitally import-
ant to the nation's agricultural enterprise and to the economy as a whole.
Although only about ten percent of the total cropped land in the U.S. is
irrigated, this land, located primarily in the West, produces approximately
25 percent of the value of farm output (National Technical Advisory Committee,
1968). This results from the more intensive farming practices and higher
yields that can be attained on irrigated lands. As the food and fiber needs
of an expanding national and world population continue to increase, it is
expected that continued irrigation developments will be a central part of
the national food policy in the United States.
Although the use of irrigation has enabled this country to provide food
and fiber in quantities unequaled in history, significant water quality prob-
lems have accompanied these expanding irrigation developments. These problems
are of particular concern because irrigated agriculture is the largest con-
sumer of the nation's water resources. In this regard, one should not ignore
the challenges of irrigated agriculture in an arid environment, particularly
in years of severe drought.
In the context of these general remarks as to the role of irrigated
agriculture in the West, an examination of the total quantity and diversity
of nonpoint source pollutants, especially in the rural areas, indicate the
complexity of the problem that must be faced. It is obvious that simply
applying technological solutions is not going to solve the nation's water
quality problems. Indeed, more and more it is recognized that many of the
gains made in the point source area will not result in cleaner water because
of the failure to act in controlling the highly significant nonpoint sources
of pollution.
-------
It is here, thatthe National Commission on Water Quality has highlighted
the historical asynchrony that has developed between implementation of sec-
tions of the Act dealing with point sources alone—Section 201--and point and
nonpoint sources togethei—Section 208. In addition, proposed solutions to
problems of nonpoint pollution have been met with substantial resistance,
despite economic and social analysis demonstrating the long-range benefits—
local, regional and national — that would result from the mitigation or elim-
ination of water quality degradation. The problem here is two-fold. On the
one hand there are the physical difficulties encountered in dealing with eva-
sive irrigation return flows wherever they exist. Equally important is a
problem of immense complexity, namely the conflicting and competing goals,
objectives and priorities of water resources management and overall national
water resource policy. There are also a number of factors that influence
significantly the strategies for resolving this problem, such as the level of
environmental quality desired; the cost of achieving that quality; the equi-
table dis.tr ibution of costs; the presumed benefits to be derived from enhancing
environmental quality; and, finally, the means for achieving that quality,
including the host of economic, legal, political, technical, as well as
social constraints.
i
In spite of the availability of technological solutions to many of the
irrigation return flow problems, there has been substantial resistance to
change and certainly a noticeable lag in implementation. One of the realistic
problems facing decision-makers at all levels (federal, state and water users)
is the identification and evaluation of institutional alternatives that can
be utilized to unite improved technologies with specific agricultural prac-
tices. Some, institutional practices may result in lessening the quality
degradation from agricultural uses of water and help achieve established goals
and standards in water resources management. In many circumstances, however,
improved technologies are necessary for the reduction of water pollution, and
new or changed institutions are then required for their implementation.
The emphasis of the present approach and the basic argument of the study
is to utilize as a backdrop existing technologies and institutions which sep-
arately or in combination are useful to the reduction or elimination of pollu-
tants from irrigation return flows. Throughout the discussion that follows,
"institutions" are defined as those social mechanisms by which society organ-
izes, manages and directs its affairs. "Institutional alternatives" are the
whole range of legal, economic, political, and cultural institutions (or,
crystallized ways of doing things) which are used for meeting social needs.
The purpose of the analysis that follows is to view the range of technical
and institutional alternatives that might be employed in improving quality of
return flows, and to "test" them in a number of irrigated areas where there
are water quality problems. The central concern of the study has to do with
the presentation of specific steps involved in the process of building a basis
for implementation of solutions to return flow problems—those solutions
being combinations of technological and institutional alternatives.
It is not our purpose to go through the entire range of problems of non-
point pollution and recommend solutions to all problems. There does exist
considerable literature on the effects of specific pollutants of agricultural
origin on water resources. Although, rather few of these studies directly
-------
relate sources to water quality, we are assuming throughout the ensuing argu-
ment that technological solutions can be found that will be much more amenable
to prediction methods relating the nature and extent of nonpoint pollutions
to various sources contributing this pollution to water quality.
Another way of expressing the central thrust of the present analysis is
to relate it to the quest for a furthering of the decision-making process in-
volved in policies, law, standards, and regulations for pollution control
from agricultural uses of water resources. This certainly implies an analy-
tical framework for assessing and evaluating a variety of institutional
alternatives and a combination of strategies having to do with an implementa-
tion process that will enable compliance with national and state water
quality standards as well as with national water quality goals. Given this
broad mandate and the emphasis on alternatives and decision-making consider-
ations, the analysis that follows is based on an approach that considers:
a. our understanding of the problem and the extent to which return
flow considerations can be intermingled with an implementation
perspective;
b. a systematic process which involves identification and generation
of alternatives, assessment and evaluation of specific steps
involved in an implementation process;
c. concrete findings both in terms of substantive steps concerning
the process of implementation as well as an initial determination
of criteria concerning the development of reasonable alternatives
in some characteristic areas of the western United States; and
d. conclusions and recommendations with regard to potential efforts
of implementation in the process of meeting the general goal of
"cleaner water" or control of nonpoint pollution.
The purpose of the study is to delineate the characteristics of an
effective process for implementing technical and institutional solutions to
the problem of return flow pollution. The process envisaged attempts to:
a. define the problem in terms of its legal, physical, economic, and
social parameters;
b. identify potential solutions in relation to the parameters of the
problem;
c. assess potential solutions for diverse situations; and
d. specify those solutions or groups of solutions which are the most
effective in reducing pollution and are implementable (building
the basis for implementation).
In looking at prevailing conditions, the present EPA permit system seems
to fail to adequately deal with the problem of irrigation return flow because
it: first, was developed in the absence of a clear understanding of the
-------
problem; and, second, it is strongly resisted by those it attempts to regu-
late. The process outlined in the study attempts to avoid these difficulties
by identifying solutions appropriate to the nature of the problem and by
"testing" for the acceptability of these solutions among those affected by
them. In essence, the key point is the problem of irrigation return flow
quality, not the "permit system."
This report revolves around a combination of technological and
institutional solutions through both basic theoretical propositions and
practical applications. The argument is presented in six interrelated
component parts:
1. The methodology report, which summarizes the overall research
approach of the study; the methodological premises; the nature of the
problem; the process for identifying appropriate solutions; the assess-
ment of potential solutions; and, finally, some general problems and
prospects concerning the process of implementation, particularly the
difficulties with implementing controls in agricultural pollution and
the theoretical and practical steps involved in building the basis for
implementation efforts.
2. An executive summary, which accompanies the main report but which
also supports a "slide show" attempting to provide in a succinct form
the major findings of the study as well as the propositions involved in
the identification, assessment and evaluation of potential solutions
concerning irrigation return flow.
3- A "sii de show" which exemplifies with characteristic visual help
the essence of the argument, the findings of the study, and addresses
in a more popular form the types of questions and responses that one
identifies with socio-economic considerations relating the spirit of
the law to the requirements of implementing solutions for controlling
the quality of irrigation return flow.
k. The overall report of the study involves also the- use of three case
studies and in-depth looks at Yakima Valley, Middle Rio Grande Valley,
and Grand Valley, which permit a presentation of the approach utilized
as well as specific findings and recommendations relating to the
problems of each case study area.
i
Each of the above parts outlined as part of the total reporting of the
study stand by themselves but, ideally, they all reflect concern with the
same argument. They should be read in conjunction, but each one of them
stands as an independent document.
Returning, then, to the methodology report which is the thrust of the
present document, the major sections relate in a theoretical as well as
practical fashion the following:
a. the major conclusions of the study, including not only theoretical
findings and methodological considerations, but also key findings
from the case studies;
-------
b. recommendations as to what can be done in view of the experiences
gained and certain concrete suggestions as to the larger problem of
water quality control;
c. the research approach used, particularly the methodological premises,
the phases of research and the role of the case studies in elaborat-
ing and illuminating the basic theoretical propositions advanced
vis-a-vis the problems of irrigation return flow quality control;
d. a description of the nature of the problem, especially with regard
to the determination of its causes and significance and the basic
parameters of the investigation;
e. the process of identifying potential solutions as well as the types
and range of proposed solutions with particular emphasis on the need
towards combinations of solutions;
f. the process of assessing potential solutions through a "filtering11
mechanism based also on field assessment; and
g. a general discussion and selected remarks as to the process of
implementation with particular emphasis on the attributes of change,
the process of innovation and diffusion, and the challenge of imple-
menting changes in agricultural pollution control efforts.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Recognizing the thrust of the present study as the process for imple-
mentation of technological and institutional solutions to return flow quality
problems, the following conclusions summarize the central findings:
1. At the heart of the problem is the institutional arrangement for
allocating water, i.e., the water right which ordinarily bears little
relationship to need and/or beneficial use.
2. The most appropriate solutions deal with the diversions and uses
of water rather than treatment of irrigation return flows, i.e., effec-
tive solutions deal with causes of pollution, not the pollution itself.
3. Solutions mutually beneficial to all other users of water and the
farmers are most implementable, e.g., publicly subsidized on-farm
physical improvements; provision of technical assistance in water
markets, water rental markets which cause allocation of "surplus"
water to nonfarm uses.
^. Various means of improving on-farm management of water are favored
by persons closely related to irrigated agriculture.
5. Irrigation districts play a major role as part of existing organ-
izations in implementing solutions to return flow quality problems.
6. Informational and educational programs to assist individual farm
operators must be instituted early; be imaginatively conceived; and
be continuously monitored, modified and upgraded if motivation for
change is to be encouraged.
7. There must be a clear definition as to who has authority, control
and responsibility for specific tasks associated with irrigation return
flow quality control.
8. Major technological breakthroughs should not be relied upon for
providing return flow control; instead, emphasis should be on a com-
bination of current technologies and of institutional arrangements.
9. Statewide and regional advisory committees have been indicated as
useful parts of the continuous effort for cooperation, coordination and
combination of efforts and resources.
-------
10. Technological alternatives for improvement should be utilized with
sensitivity to local conditions and as part of a slow, iterative and
long-range process of implementation.
11. Credibility and trustworthiness of federal and state agencies in
the eyes of water users provide the important final ingredient in
understanding the need for change; in motivating individuals for accept-
ing appropriate solutions; and, in creating a climate of cooperation
and credence as to the need and ultimate usefulness of a larger social
policy concerning "cleaner water."
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations of the project are more relevant to the circum-
stances of the case studies. Generalizing from the recommendations of the
case studies, the following points supplement key recommendations from the
study:
1. Studies should be undertaken to evaluate the downstream damages
due to water pollution. Such studies would delineate the distributional
impacts of benefits and costs from measures to improve irrigation return
flow quality in order to develop more exact standards of cost-sharing.
In essence, the share of the burden between the farmer and society
should be more accurately evaluated in order to arrive at a better
estimation of whether the farmer should pay the full cost, or the
government should share the eventual cost.
2. Given the first recommendation, solutions to problems of irrigation
return flow quality control should deal with causes and not symptoms.
This means tracking the ultimate conditions that result in water deg-
radation, especially through a careful analysis of the provisions of
the legal system and the creation of a market and other institutional
mechanisms that could reach the roots of the problem rather than the
manifestations of it.
3. A water management improvement program should be implemented to
include the following components:
a. system rehabilitation to allow timely and accurate delivery of
water so that existing constraints to better on-farm water
management may be removed;
b. an irrigation scheduling service to allow farmers optimal quant-
ities of water for crop production to be applied with a minimum
of waste;
c. measurement of irrigation water to the farm to allow the appli-
cation of the desired quantity of irrigation water; and
d. a change in irrigation methods in some cases (e.g.,. trickle
irrigation for pecans, sprinkler irrigation for field crops)
to reduce consumptive use and waste due to nonuniformity of
water application.
-------
*t. In terms of implementabi 1 i ty, the most acceptable methods are those
for which we have most control. In this respect, inappropriate solutions
are those that are superimposed on the system and are not part of local
control. Local solutions areneeded which maximize implementabi1Ity and
are sensitive to the problem at hand, and which may also require the
creation of new institutions. Whenever possible, existing institutional
bodies should be utilized rather than superimposing artificially con-
ceived organizations.
5. There must be greater participation by the farmers and users in
order to enhance the feeling of joint action, involvement and attitudes
of democratic decision-making. This implies that the implementation
efforts are part of a communitywide basis and of a total involvement
rather than part of handed-down solutions imposed upon the water user.
6. It is important to expand demonstration projects in order to incor-
porate institutional "solutions" on a basinwide basis and attack the
problem through a more holistic approach, rather than only through
technological measures. However, while the demonstration project should
be on a basis that would be wide enough (perhaps a district or a region^
it should not encompass such a wide territory as to lose its effective-
ness as a demonstration project.
7. The approach towards implementation should be based on a determina-
tion of the ability of the farmer to solve the problem as well as of the
capability of the government to promote irrigation return flow quality
control. A balance must be reached between the ability of the farmer
and the capability of the government in order to provide a mix of
implementing measures that utilize both motivational reinforcement and
administrative enforcement.
10
-------
SECTION k
THE RESEARCH APPROACH
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
The study undertaken by the interdisciplinary team has attempted to
further the public and political decision-making process concerned with the
problem of quality degradation in agricultural return flows. In outlining
the thrust of such an approach, the following interrelated objectives have
been identified as necessary:
a. the description of problems of water quality caused by irrigation
return flows in a particular area;
b. the identification of appropriate technologies and the institutional
alternatives that together may improve irrigation return flow
quali ty control;
c. the assessment of combinations of technologies and institutions as
to their feasibility of implementation in selected areas in the
West, through field responses and community feedback; and
d. the analysis of the process of change and of decision-making as a
basis for eventual efforts of implementing return flow quality
control.
To achieve the proposed interdisciplinary study, four areas were
selected in the western United States within which the conceptual and method-
ological approaches to the studies were applied. These included Yakima
Valley, Middle Rio Grande Valley from Elephant Butte Reservoir to Fort
Quitman, Texas, Grand Valley, and San Joaquin Valley. Such an approach
allowed a combination of both theory and practice and contributed to the
development of both general and specific recommendations for programs imple-
menting institutions and technologies for improvement of irrigation return
flow quality control. The first three areas were studied in detail, while
the last one (as it will be indicated later) was used only as an additional
source of information for outlining general problems in return flows.
Essentially, in the proposed approach, there are five interlocking
steps in a process of cumulatively building experience with the problem and
of providing an analytical framework for evaluating technological and
institutional alternatives. These steps include:
11
-------
1. Problem definition.
2. The investigation of those institutions and technologies which
could control quality of irrigation return flow and the assessment of
their impact on the problem.
3. The generation of alternatives, or the identification and analysis
of various technical and institutional solutions to problems of quality
control.
k. The assessment of those alternatives and a critical analysis of
total system effects of criteria for weighting alternatives.
5. Evaluation through the help of affected recipients and a juxtaposi-
tion of feasible strategies and of programs of quality control.
Thus, the major effort in this study was of building a basis for
implementation In a dynamic process of definition, investigation, analysis,
and evaluation of alternatives and an understanding throughout this process
of key factors which may hinder or facilitate adoption and sustained use of
"solutions."
The general objectives outlined above have to be understood in the con-
text of a broader approach that involves four critical dimensions as outlined
in the descriptive dimensions of Figure 1. First of all, a major dimension
has to do with the delineation of the problem boundaries and the determina-
tion of the irrigation return flow quality control dimensions (1). The
second part of the analysis involves the provisions and the legal imperatives
outlined in P.L. 92-500 (2). The third has to do with the "recipients,"
i.e., affected parties and the related organizational preparedness for new
institutional arrangements or rearrangements (3). Finally, the last part
has to do with the preferred course of action, or "the solution" which is
described as the "fit," constituting the combination of technological and
institutional alternatives aiming at reduction of problems of irrigation
return flow (4). In other words, what we have in this impressionistic fig-
ure are the key elements of our approach, i.e., the degradation of water from
a variety of agricultural use pollutants; the law; the affected parties; and,
the "solution."
In such an approach, the problem bounding of the irrigation return flow
quality control problem reflects the physical parameters and particular con-
ditions and uses of a given problematic situation of agricultural pollution
(2). P.L. 92-500, which demands that the problem be remedied, is represented
by the circle (2) overlapping with the boundaries of the problem. This
results from the fact that not all of the law is necessarily applicable to
irrigation return flow quality control problems. The same argument pertains
also to recipients of effects (3), both affected parties (groups or indivi-
duals) and organizations (in terms of their preparedness for change).
Obviously, part of parties and organizations fall within the boundaries of
agricultural pollution; but, at the same time, part of them are outside the
particular boundary of the problem (in both spatial and aspatial terms). It
should be noted here that institutional preparedness implies what the social
12
-------
(1)
"Problem" IRFQC (bounding)
"Feasible Solution"
process of implementation
\
«4-
0
at in
4-1 4->
-C O
0)
-------
system can do with regard to the problem of irrigation return flow quality
control. Within that institutional framework and with consideration of
affected parties, one can trace consequences of the law. Institutional link-
ages place individual recipients within the organizational framework. It is
such a framework which to a large extent determines the degree and type
of effects that the individuals will be exposed to.
Given these three major dimensions--the problem, the law, and the
recipients—the next'step is to investigate those "solutions11 (hardware and
software) which singly or together may control irrigation return flow. There
emerges what we roughly have described as the "preferred course of action,"
or in a simpler form, the "solution" (4). Such a "solution" takes into
account the conditions of the situation, the technical and institutional
parameters, and arranges all such elements in such a way as to meet the
spirit of the law. Ideally, such a procedure would allow the best possible
"fit" of the law and affected recipients in order to achieve shared goals of
return flow quality control. The "solution" to the problem of irrigation
return flow quality control is to maximize the compatibility of the mandate
of the law with the desires of the recipients as related to efficient and
effective agricultural production. In this simplistic interpretation, a
"feasible solution" standing between the law and the recipients should act
as a ''pull" bringing together these two poles of presumed similar interests,
namely, increased agricultural output and "cleaner water."
This process of integrating the provisions of the law with the desires
of the recipients leads to further consideration as to implementing a "feas-
ible solution" by keeping in mind three critical questions:
1. How is the preferred course of action arrived at (developing feas-
ible or balanced solutions)?
2. Once that preferred course of action is obtained, how can it be
integrated into the social system?
3. Given the first two dimensions, what are the conditions for exer-
cising, monitoring and reevaluating this particular course of action
(administration)?
What we are saying is that the process of implementation represented by
the dotted lines of Figure 1 brings the objectives of the Taw and the desires
of the recipients closer together in a compatible and negotiated scheme whose
ultimate aim is the proper solutf'on of .problems of pollution arid irrigation
return flow quality control, leading to "cleaner water*"
Implicit throughout this general scheme of bringing together legal im-
peratives (policy) and affected parties (implementation) are a number of /
underlying concepts from social psychology. These concepts can be all sub-
sumed under the process that may be briefly labeled as that of "bracketing"
(also "screening" or "filtering"). The common characteristic of all such
broad concepts Is the attempt to incorporate the notion of congruence or
compatibi1? ty. Rather than discussing further all such concepts, we may use
14
-------
the categories in Figure 2 In order to summarize the presumed differences in
the continuum from knowledge to information and adoption and implementation.
Figure 2 assumes two levels of analysis. On the individual level there
may arise what has been identified in the literature as "cognitive disso-
nance." In the present context, this concept indicates the discomfort
experienced by persons when they perceive that various phenomena are in-
consistent with one another. In such a case, individuals are motivated to
seek balance "in order to get their world in order again." The concept of
cognitive dissonance on the individual, or socio-psychological, level is
important in order to understand the disparity between the individual user's
understanding of what the implementation of irrigation return flow measures
may do and his understanding of how the world around him really is. On the
other hand, on a more macro level or on a societal level, we may understand
the disparities or disagreements as part of what we may summarily label
"structural strain," indicating the difference between the noble principles
of the law and the inability of institutions to stretch and accommodate pro-
posed changes or implement desired policies.
The implication from such potential sources of incompatibility is that
the solution of cognitive dissonance leads to consensus validation, while the
resolution of structural strain leads to what may be called "socio-cultural
compatibility" (i.e., the agreement between what the law implies and what the
law in the actual case is capable of doing). Thus, the resolution of both
individual cognitive dissonance and of institutional structural strains leads
ideally to congruence through steps and measures that they are not only
appropriate but also acceptable and feasible under the realistic constraints
of given circumstances.
The above considerations point out that often there may be a pronounced
gap between proposed policy actions and efforts for implementation. Later on
there will be further discussion of the theme as to how this gap can be
closed and how compatibility between what is proposed and what can be imple-
mented can be achieved. It is important to notice that this gap between pro-
posed policy actions and actual implementation efforts may be due to many
factors such as the lack of appropriate roles; the lack of a larger normative
structure; the lack of institutional linkages and mechanisms; and, above
everything else, lack of resources.
The brief remarks made above about socio-psychological and societal
level efforts for compatibility or congruence point out that underlying any
type of decision-making and implementation effort is a conflict model that
postulates how patterns for coping with decisional stress are processed fay
both decision-makers as well as affected parties. The dissonance or lack of
congruence become, then, part of a variety of coping patterns in conflict
resolution, ranging all the way from unconflicted adherence to defensive
avoidance (such as procrastination, shifting responsibility, or bolstering);
to, finally, vigilance which has been defined in the literature as a discrim-
inating search with open-mindedness involving a serious examination of all
risks involved, including the belief that eventually a satisfactory solution
can be found and that there is sufficient time for search and evaluation
before a commitment to a particular policy is to be made.
15
-------
Continuum of
Implementing
efforts
Level
Sources of
Discontinuity
-------
Conflict resolution, therefore, involves a very elaborate scheme beyond
and above what appears on the surface as a simple process of bringing
together the precepts of the law with the desires of affected parties. In
addition, there is also post-decisional conflict which aims at undoing or
reversing a particular decision or policy. Thus, a decisional crisis may
appear at even a later stage having to do with either the effort of undoing
the decision; or a compromise in the form of partial implementation; or, a
reaffirmation of the original decision if the conditions foster through
political maneuvering an eventual agreement with the original purpose of the
policy action (especially if the benefits to be derived are further expli-
cated and the risks do not seem particularly prohibitive).
The above brief exercise into some basic concepts involved in identify-
ing a particular problem, developing alternatives and in assessing and
evaluating solutions can show how far-reaching and difficult are the set of
circumstances that are associated with the implementation of a given policy
action. These remarks will be further elaborated with concrete examples in
Section 8, where an attempt is made to outline the process of implementation
by concentrating on problems and challenges associated with the attributes of
change and with the process of innovation, diffusion and implementation.
It is important, however, to return to the basic premises characteriz-
ing the quest for improved water quality. The premises of the present study
and the key elements thatare driving the search for a solution emphasize:
a) a basic preventive approach (enforcement as an exception); b) public par-
ticipation and involvement (voluntary compliance emphasis); c) flexibility
and adaptability (solutions being site-specific and culturally sensitive);
d) technological efficiency (technically appropriate solutions); e) organi-
zational preparedness and interrelationships among all affected parties;
and f) credibility and believabi1ity of proposed alternatives and strategies.
The above are only some of the central assumptions that can serve as
philosophical underpinnings of the search for building implementable strate-
gies for irrigation return flow controj. It is in the context of such broad
assumptions that we need, then, to delineate and evaluate a consistent
approach for reaching shared goals of "cleaner water."
The key problem,at this moment, is to incorporate in all the above
dimensions, discussions and objectives and in the general parameters of the
problem, a set of operational questions in order to demonstrate how coopera-
tion and coordination through appropriate solutions can build integrated
strategies .of change; or, in the spirit of Figure 1, how we bring together
problem, "solution," process of implementation, and administration with re-
gard to return flow problems. These operational questions exemplify in a
very specific form the emphasis of the present research on two different
levels. On the one hand, the study is concerned with an overall scheme and
conceptual integration of the dimensions of an implementation process. On
the other hand, we want to refer to specific problematic situations in each
of the case study areas proposed. What we have, then, are questions of
research procedure dealing with the dimensions of "the solution," through
some general theoretical discussion of how one arrives at some form of
"optimum fit." At the other end, pragmatic questions analyze specific
17
-------
parameters of a concrete problem situation. To avoid further abstract elab-
oration, key questions include:
1. Questions of Research Procedure
"SOLUTION:" General
Identify procedures for arriving at the most preferred
course of action (combination of technical and institu-
tional alternatives).
Spec? fie
Identify specific situational points (solutions) in each
case study area.
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS: General
Describe the basis of the theory of innovation-diffusion,
the nature of the fit of the solution, and the process of
public participation.
Specific
Delineate in each area the feedback, organizations that
can be used for implementation, channels of communication,
etc.
2. Pragmatic Questions.
While the above have to do with a more or less abstract approach,
pragmatic questions concentrate on potential courses of action. While
such questions are also concerned with the law, the recipients and the
feasible solution, their emphasis is on "what next," or what specific
insights have we gained. Central among them are:
• Should the law be changed?
• Should the administration of the law be changed?
• If yes, how? (For example, by reinterpreting what proper provisions
of the law are conducive to irrigated agriculture.)
• What do people prefer?
• What is the compatibility between the people's preferences and the
law? (Such as the degree of their relationship, the extent of
communication, sensitivity to mutual demands, etc.)
• Recognizing that there are means for reducing irrigation return flow,
how does one implement the solutions? (What are, e.g., the specific
steps for a timely and orderly transition to new requirements?)
Certainly, it is impossible to answer in an exact form all such realis-
tic and everyday questions concerning Implementation of legal requirements.
At this point, and without elaborating in advance a longer argument, our
18
-------
contention is that it is not the law that needs to be changed, but its
administration, particularly through reinterpretation, careful testing in
specific cases, and gradual process of change.
Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to turn back and underline the
issues raised in the previous pages. The essence of our argument is the es-
tablishment of a "fit" between the law and the recipients of that law. Thus,
a "solution's" purpose is to integrate the law with the recipients' desires
through appropriate institutional linkages.
Another way of looking at the approach of the study is through an evolv-
ing assessment process summarized in Figure 3. The key element in this par-
ticular figure has to do with the search for a balanced decision that would
provide the best solution ("appropriate solution") to the dissatisfaction
from agricultural pollution (as mandated by the law or becoming apparent in
the surrounding environment).
By using this type of an approach and through continuous interaction
among members of the research team, a consensus as to critical findings has
been established. The concern throughout the conduct of the study has been
to provide concrete validation of the theoretical processes described above,
and, at the same time, through interaction both within the team as well as
with water users in the particular areas of concern, relate to actual cir-
cumstances the critical findings concerning solutions, constraints to
implementation, and the basis for developing strategies for controlling
irrigation return flow.
The problem does not reside exclusively on the determination of an
"appropriate solution," although the last has been a central point in find-
ing out what really can be done to communicate effectively the spirit of the
law with regard to problematic situations in a variety of cases in the
western United States. The concern begins with the process of arriving at
appropriate solutions, in assessing in an interdisciplinary manner alterna-
tives, and in out!ining the steps for an eventual process of implementation
of whatever is the agreed~upon "solution" or program.
It is important to underscore again the centralit'y of the search for an
"appropriate" or "balanced" solution. A key element and assumption of the
study has been that such a desired "appropriate" solution can be reached by
considering through an interdisciplinary analysis a variety of factors that
bring together what is technically sound, economically viable, legally per-
tinent, socially acceptable, and, finally, what is politically feasible or
implementable. This search for the combination of a wide spectrum of condi-
tions leading to the "appropriate solution" is articulated in the categories
of Figure 4.
In the present study, we considered such criteria in an abstract as well
as in a practical form (theoretically as well as through field experience) in
order to reach what is a balanced solution given certain technical, legal and
socio-economic conditions (Figure 5).
19
-------
LEGISLATION
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
DISSATISFACTION
INFORMATION
AND
OPTIONS
ASSESSMENT
alternatives
EVALUATION
[Appropriate
Solution]
BASIS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
Reevaluation
changes to the environment
Figure 3- Building the basis for implementation.
20
o
o
0>
jQ
10
c
o
M
CT
-------
-Technical1y_
sound
APPROPRIATE SOLUTION"!
Technologically practicable
•Long-term benefits vs. short-term gains
•Ecologically non-damaging
Economically_
viable
Economically achievable
Providing efficient resource allocation
•Promoting equitable distribution
Lega11y
pertinent
•Protects vested rights (due process]
'Complies with legal criteria in substantive law
•Complies with administrative procedures
Promotes beneficial use concept
Is characterized by flexibility & predictability
Socially
acceptable
Congruent with current practices
Consistent within cultural context
Compatible with organizational structure
Corresponding with desires of people
Politically
feasible"
Compatibility of interests (local/regional/national)
•Establishes priority of problems
•Compares severity, intensity and magnitude of
potential effects
•Aims at constituency satisfaction
Figure k. Key characteristics of an appropriate solution.
21
-------
Appropriate-^
Solution
(Technical ^
Institutional) x.
Feedback and
Analysis
N
-^-Reasonable
Solution
(Political
+
Socioeconomi c)
I
\4 I
A Feasible
Solution
Process of Implementation
Acceptable Solution
Figure 5. The search for acceptable solutions
22
-------
_What the above imply is that in studying the technical and institutional
conditions of a given problem area, an appropriate solution (through inter-
disciplinary analysis) may evolve. However, that generally or theoretically
arrived-at appropriate solution must be imbedded in a political and socio-
economic context in order for that solution to be a "reasonable" one com-
pared to combinations of other solutions or program strategies. At this
point, through an assessment and evaluation procedure, a "feasible solution"
can be considered. This solution is introduced into the social system via a
dynamic process of implementation, which when institutionalized becomes the
"acceptable solution" to the original problem of return flow quality control.
In order to further explicate this approach and, at the same time, sum-
marize the central argument of our study, the key dimensions shown in Figure
6 may be used. In this summarizing figure, the sequence of the study
approach involves:
a. setting the stage, bounding the problem and considering potential
solutions;
b. arriving at appropriate solutions and determining alternative
strategies; and
c. building the basis for implementation and facilitating the accept-
ance of appropriate solutions.
Figure 6 outlines also particular aspects or dimensions in each of the
above phases. Each of these subdimensions has been intensively analyzed as
part of the desired interdisciplinary synthesis aimed at building the basis
for implementing a given solution (or, for relating appropriate to acceptable
"solutions"). In addition, Figure 6 underscores the iterative steps involved
in such a process. In implementing an appropriate solution (in making it
acceptable), monitoring and feedback may allow the problems to be redefined
(reexamine the stage, critical variables, law, or affected parties); the
appropriateness of the solution to be questioned (especially with regard to
trade-offs and local sensitivity); and the acceptability of the proposed
solution to be reexamined in terms of the degree of local involvement, avail-
ability of implementation mechanisms and coordination between all responsible
agencies.
I
In summary, the process of implementation brings together the objectives
of the law and the desires of the recipients in a compatible, complementary
and negotiated scheme whose ultimate aim is the proper solution of problems
of pollution and irrigation return flow.
The essence of the approach developed is that the problem requires con-
sideration of a number of alternatives leading to some solution. The process
of implementation brings together problems and solutions, as well as an
assessment of the various alternative strategies. This process is based on
a juxtaposition of a set of assumptions and of related programs as outlined
in the following manner:
23
-------
I SETTING THE STAGE!
Outlining major variables
• Identify critical parameters
• Assess major dimensions
Understanding the law
• Definition
• Interpretation
• Application
s >.
/ V
' potential (
\ solution (
N
—-*
r
i
L
Bounding the Problem
Determining affected parties
• Responsible organizations
• Affected individuals
• Related agencies
ARRIVING TlTTiPPROPRI ATE
SOLUTIONS
Balanced solution
• Identification per discipline
• Interdisciplinary synthesis
'appropriate)
I solution /~
Nx. S
4 Determining alternative strategies' mixes
BUILDING THE BASIS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
Local involvement
• Information and education
• Local mobilization
• Individual acceptance
Use of existing mechanisms
• Recognize existing institutions
(enforce conditions of use)
• Utilize existing organizations
I acceptable 1
\ solution r
r ^ ,
-(Establishing the. process of implementation I
Local sensitivity
• Local feedback for decision-making
• Determination of financial
requi rements
Linkages between responsible
agencies
• Determine authority, control
and span of responsibility
• Approval by the state as to
meeting requirements
• Promotion of cooperation and
combination of resources
Reestablishment of credibility
between state and federal
agencies and water users
(Mon i tor i ng and Feedback)
Figure 6. A sequential paradigm for building the basis for implementation.
-------
Assumptions
Examples of
Intervention
Program
Improved Agricultural
Practices
- Improved Water Management
- Public Acceptability
•Incenti ves
•Market
mechanisms
•Legal
enforcement
•Centrali zed
demands
•Etc.
Best Agricultural
Practices
- Best Management Practices
- Public Mobilization
The key problem in this study was not so much the repetition of the
conditions in the areas of concern that may hamper or facilitate potential
change and implementation of new technologies (although this is a necessary
part of the problem); but, the focusing upon very specific strategies and
tactics required for a dynamic process of effecting change. The important
aspect is to develop a paradigm as to how specific features of an imple-
mentation process can be outlined and, at the same time, formulate a par-
ticular plan for improving irrigation return flow quality in areas of
concern.
PHASES OF RESEARCH
The previous discussion points out that the central problem in the study
was the evaluation of potential strategies in building the basis for the
implementation of a variety of institutional arrangements that make possible
effective utilization of technologies for irrigation return flow quality con-
trol (IRFQC). IRFQ.C is seen primarily as part of a dynamic process involving
description of the problem situation; analysis of technological and institu-
tional alternatives; assessment and evaluation of combinations of solutions;
and definition of the basis for an implementation process which may lead to
the accomplishment of stated goals. Thus, the research revolves around four
major phases:
a. systemic mapping or problem description;
b. identification of potential solutions or generation of alternatives;
c. assessment and evaluation of potential solutions; and
d. the building of the basis for implementation.
The overall approach and the steps of the unfolding process are sum-
marized in Figure 7. Around these general categories of concern, the follow-
ing specific four phases (which also head Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 that follow)
become the guiding principles of the specific conceptual and methodological
consideration throughout the study.
25
-------
GOALS
-Objectives,
NJ
CT\
ivesr
rr
Problem
Formulation
—Apriorities^)
—(cons t mints}
Key parameters
or variables
Physical
Economic)—
Legolj-
-j Social
SYSTEMIC MAPPING
ALTERNATIVES
GENERATION
echnical
economic
viability
ramework'
x^ocio
V^scre
screening
SELECTfON OF
FEASIBLE
OBJECTIVES
cost
organ izationa
grig lysis
trade-offs
national
policies
GENERATION OF (ASSESSMENT,EVALUATION BASIS FOR
ALTERNATIVES '& DECISION-MAKING I IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Figure 7. Conceptual framework for proposed research.
-------
1. Systemic mapping, or problem description. An initial part of the
study was devoted to a specific problem formulation. This involved a
delineation of physical and socio-economic circumstances in each geo-
graphic area of concern, determination of severity and intensity of
quality return flow problems, and perceived need for change. Utiliz-
ing predominantly existing data and series of site visits, the inter-
disciplinary team provided a delineation of critical variables through
a description of physical, technical, economic, legal, and social
dimensions characterizing the surrounding "environment" of the areas
under examination.
2. Generation of alternatives, or identification of potential solutions.
With the establishment of a realistic background having to do with con-
crete data and problematic situations in areas of concern, a next phase
involved the identification and analysis of various technical and insti-
tutional solutions to problems of water quality control. This phase of
research incorporated technical design requirements, the economic via-
bility of proposed technical solutions, institutional alternatives, and
the socio-political considerations which are necessary for choices among
technical-institutional alternatives and solutions of the problem at
hand. At the same time, a number of initial screening mechanisms were
established by concentrating on such dimensions as:
a. the types of potential project intervention (such as the combination
of hardware and software solutions);
b. the definition of system boundaries and functions (such as communi-
ties affected, services provided, goals to be achieved, etc.); and
c.
technical design requirements (especially the explication of
appropriate technological innovations).
3. Assessment of potential solutions. This phase was concerned with
the selection and assessment of feasible alternatives within the frame-
work of goals and policies, and with appropriate strategies for consid-
ering a potential implementation of chosen alternatives. In particular,
this phase provided the basis for critical assessment of the total sys-
tem effects and criteria for weighting alternatives for problem solution.
It is at this particular phase that the assessment of potential solutions
provided also the possibility for direct contact with decision-makers and
water users at various levels for project areas that served also as
confirmation of theoretically conceived alternatives. The key problem
was to explicate the need for a meeting ground that would permit all
affected parties to express their unconstrained opinions as to the
nature and feasibility of the proposals for problem solution which were
set within certain established standards for quality return flows.
it. Building the basis for implementation. This last phase constituted
a core argument that by necessity had to remain rather theoretical.
This phase concentrated on some initial remarks as to the management of
implementation efforts; the designing of appropriate steps for effective
implementation as well as the timing of change; and, finally, on a
27
-------
recapitulation of the dynamic character of the process of implementation
which begins exactly with the steps outlined above, i.e., with a de-
tailed description of the nature of the problem and the identification
and assessment of potential solutions through all affected parties.
Looking back at the four major phases that characterize the general
research and which were also the guiding lines for a detailed examination of
each case study, one should underscore the sequential scheme of a progressive
but mutually reinforcing cycle of problem description, identification of
potential solutions, assessment and building the basis for implementation.
Thus, by determining the basic physical, economic, legal, and social condi-
tions which contribute to the problem of water quality degradation, it be-
comes possible to develop solutions that deal with a combination of causative
factors, rather than by merely referring to symptoms. Given the thrust of
this research, the emphasis throughout rests on the assessment of potential
solutions through field assessment in order to arrive at a concensus of pack-
ages of appropriate solutions; evaluation of acceptable approaches; and,
finally, on the building of a credible process of implementation through a
combination of what is theoretically sound, realistically practicable, and
socio-economically attainable. In this regard, we are also describing a
process of "specification" with a number of associated concepts, such as
summarized in Figure 8.
Throughout the study, it was assumed that following the identification
of potential solutions for return flow quality problems, appropriate solutions
would be more or less acceptable (and thus implementable), depending on their
impacts on the affected parties. Field assessment procedures were devised to
determine technical, economic, political, and social acceptability of alter-
native solutions. These procedures involved assessment and evaluation by:
a) the project team; b) state and federal agency personnel; c) irrigation
water management; and d) water users. The field assessment of potential
solutions provided a realistic backdrop against which further sharpening of
the range of alternatives, their advantages and disadvantages, could be
pursued.
The field assessment of potential solutions, being such a central point,
needs a bit of further elaboration since it became a central feature of the
analysis of material in the case studies. A first evaluation was conducted
by the project team. Composed as it was of engineers, economists, sociolo-
gists, and an attorney, the team was able to judge alternative solutions in
terms of the criteria of general technical, economic, legal, and social
feasibility (along the characteristics suggested in Figure k]. Inappropriate
and ill-advised solutions were immediately weeded out, though their number
was not great to start with. Alternatives with potential for significant
impacts on the quality problem and those without prohibitive costs were left!
for evaluation by others. The team wanted to present the widest possible
range of alternatives to succeeding evaluators and to the field for "testing"
as to their appropriateness, feasibility and acceptability.
A second evaluation was accomplished by federal and state agency person-
nel, chiefly those presently or prospectively involved in administration of
quality improvement programs. The alternative solutions were thus screened
28
-------
PHASE
PROCESS
'ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS 'PRESUMED ACTIVITIES
M
PROBLEM
DESCRIPTION
IDENTIFICATION
OF POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS
ASSESSMENT OF
POTENTIAL
SOLUTH
' "Innovation" )
"POTENTIAL"
IMPLEMENTATION
Identifying
Screening
Field Assessment
Evaluation
Bu i Idi ng
basis for
implement-
ation
•determination
•defini tion
•description
_ I -an.al.ysjs
assessment
I- - - T-evaluation
-"perceiving"
-"presenting"
•"searching"
•"judging"
"decision-making ' -"contrasting"
''communication
.•di ffusion
""spreading"
! 'f i 1 taring
•bracketing
, -narrowing
• val i dat i ng
1 '"securing
1 agreement"
'••"executing"
Figure 8. Specifying the process for building the basis for implementation.
-------
by those with technical and legal expertise, a groupwith a special concern
for administration of laws and programs. This group tended to sort out those
solutions which did not fit within the framework of existing laws, rules and
regulations, and which would, therefore, be difficult to implement. The list
of alternatives was reduced, but not so as to exclude some solutions which
would be possible with changes in laws, rules and regulations.
A third evaluation was completed by managers of water supply agencies
(e.g., irrigation companies and districts) and their boards of directors.
These were individuals having responsibility for distribution of water among
farms of members and patrons and for maintenance of system facilities. Be-
cause they are potentially responsible for administration of revised rules
governing diversions and use of water; they tended to resist measures of
control. But they were aware of water quality problems; they were generally
convinced of possibilities for improved use of water; and they tended to
favor quality control measures located and administered at their level
rather than at higher or lower levels.
Finally, a fourth evaluation was done by users of water, i.e., farmers
who use water in irrigation of crops. They were interviewed individually.
During the interviews, there were extensive discussions as to return flow
quality problems and as to potentially useful solutions. These individuals,
though alarmed by present efforts to control their use of water, showed both
ability and willingness to comprehend problems of water quality and to deal
with them. They were very practical in their judgments of implementabi1ity
of the various alternative solutions, and they generally tended to favor
those measures aimed at improved use of water in agriculture. Obviously,
these were the types of measures and solutions over which they had some
control.
The alternative solutions proposed for evaluation ranged from those
which were wholly technical (e.g., rehabilitation of distribution systems) to
those which were purely institutional (e.g., creation of water markets).
Some were combinations of technical and ins»titutional measures which would
cause improvements in quality of return flows (e.g., cost-sharing arrange-
ments for improved irrigation facilities). They can be generally classed as
a) those which were concerned with the effluent, i.e., the return flow;
b) those concerned with the influent, i.e., the water diverted to agricul-
ture; c) those associated with the management of land and water on farms;
and d) those directed to sources of water, i.e., generally those which would
increase supply.
The assessment process and especially the field "testing" contributed to
an iterative character in that it involved the mutual education of those per-
forming the testing as well as those being tested. In this regard, the test-
ing process is not one of determining absolutes, but of providing a dialogue}
leading to possible combinations of packages of alternative solutions with
sensitivity to both the imperatives of the law as well as to concrete cir-
cumstances. Possible solutions can be modified, added or deleted during the
testing process as one becomes more aware of the intricacies and the specifi-
cities of a given problem. On the other hand, responses from affected
30
-------
parties tend to alter over time as they, too, become more aware and better
educated in the problem.
The flexibility of the assessment process becomes, then, the greatest
attribute and vital element in the building of an implementation basis.
While the laboratory scientists or the abstract theoretician might hesitate
to identify the process as a test, the realistic testing against the percep-
tions of the field can produce insights as to the potential for long-range
solutions which no rigid or preconceived experiment can provide. The flex-
ibility of this dynamic assessment process can also contribute to the pro-
ductivity of the effort. In the most succinct form possible, the key
argument here is that the heart of the problem rests with the institutional
framework through which water is managed; and this framework is not immutable
but can be changed from the endogenous and exogenous forces.
It is obvious, by now, that the continuous statements as to the iterative
character or flexibility of this approach make it impossible to develop uni-
versal packages concerning implementing measures for irrigation return flow
quality control. Indeed, the assessment process should not be designed to
develop such packages. It could, however, be easily used for developing
solution packages since the effort of implementation is in the process of
describing the problem in its true characteristics and in the identification
and assessment of potential solutions through an involvement of affected
parties in a manner that tends to reinforce thinking in holistic rather
than atomistic terms.
The process itself (of generating appropriate solutions and of testing
for their eventual implementabi1ity) is the focus of attention and the cen-
tral axis for providing "solutions" to problems of irrigation return flow
quality. It is such a process that would link the problem, potential solu-
tions and attainable strategies into definable means for implementing both
the spirit and letter of P.L. 92~500 and of the broader social desire for
a safe, productive and fulfilling environment.
THE ROLE OF CASE STUDIES
The approach and emphasis of the overall project, and of all case stud-
ies utilized as well, does nott rest exclusively on the determination of
"appropriate solutions" for the problem of return flow quality, although the
last is a central point in communicating effectively the spirit of P.L. 92-
500. The concern throughout begins with the process of arriving at appro-
priate solutions, in assessing in an interdisciplinary manner, and in out-
lining the steps for an eventual process of implementation of whatever may
be the agreed-upon "solution" or program.
Thus, the study has been organized to provide for identification and
analysis of the elements of an effective assessment of potential solutions
and of building an implementation process concerned with the national goal
of improved quality of this nation's waters. To facilitate this approach,
four areas have been selected in the western United States, within which the
conceptual and methodological premises outlined previously could be applied.
31
-------
Sn thi s manner, the problem that was identified and the techniques pursued
would allow for a combination of theory and practice in order to develop
specific recommendations for building a basis for implementing institutions
and technologies for improvement of the quality of irrigation return flow.
The selection of the areas of case study was guided by two criteria.
First, considerable data collection and research had already taken place, or
is presently underway, which will describe the problem situation; and, second,
different problems of return flow quality would essentially make the study of
institutions more meaningful and the description of potential implementation
processes more sensitive to local conditions. The four study areas, as shown
in Figure 9> are:
1. Yakima Valley, Washington.
2. Mesilla Valley, New Mexico and El Paso Valley, Texas (Middle Rio
Grande Valley).
3- Grand Valley, Colorado.
4. San Joaquin Valley, California.
Yakima Valley is primarily noted for agricultural water quality problems
resulting from sediments, phosphates and nematodes. Importation of addition-
al water into the San Joaquin Valley as a result of the California State
Water Project will yield additional drainage flows high in nitrates and
salinity which will aggravate water pollution conditions in San Francisco
Bay unless corrective measures are taken. Grand Valley is receiving consid-
erable national attention because of high salt loads entering the Colorado
River due to overirrigation. Finally, Mesilla Valley and El Paso Valley con-
tribute salt loads to underlying ground water aquifers as well as the Rio
Grande, with control measures becoming highly important with rapid urbani-
zation in El Paso and Juarez (Republic of Mexico).
For three of the study areas, a special report was prepared which de-
scribes the physical, economic, legal, and social settings; irrigation return
flow quality problems; technological and institutional solutions; and means
for implementing these solutions. San Joaquin Valley, on the other hand,
was used only as a background case, and no special report was prepared.
However, some remarks as to implementation aspects derived from an analysis
of this last valley have been incorporated into the main report. By prepar-
ing a report for each of the three study areas, considerable detail was pro-
vided which may be beneficial to locally interested parties, and which, at
the same time, can serve as illustrative examples of the variety of problems
related to irrigation return flow quality control.
The selection of the four sites represents not only the range of irriga-
tion return flow problems, but also the variety of legal systems for water
allocation and administration of surface and ground water intrastate and
interstate. Within each system, various rights and obligations exist, and
due to the hydraulic nature of water resources, the different systems are
not always synchronous, therefore producing different problems.
32
-------
-Yakima Val1ey
San
Joaqui n ^
Valley
LEGEND
Mesilla Valley
and
El Paso Valley
| | Appropriations
Appropriations £
Riparian Rights
Study Area
Figure 9. State water law systems and location of study areas.
33
-------
The surface waters within the western states are controlled by one of
two systems: appropriation or combined appropriation and riparian system
(see Figure 9). Colorado and New Mexico administer the appropriation doctrine
with a variety of differences between the nature of the water right and the
method of administration. California, Texas and Washington apply a mixture
of appropriation and riparian law.
Ground water regulation among the selected areas is particularly rele-
vant to defining institutional alternatives in irrigation return flow qual-
ity control (see Figure 10). Colorado, Washington and New Mexico apply the
appropriation concept to subsurface wi thdrawal. Cali.fornia developed a
unique concept of correlative rights in which reasonable use of ground
waters is followed in normal recharge years, but proportional sharing is
applied during periods of drought or excessive ground water depletion.
Texas has continued to follow the common law absolute ownership doctrine,
which allows unlimited withdrawal by the surface owner.
Superimposed over the state control systems are the interstate compacts
and allocations and the federal claims to reserved waters. The Colorado
River^ which flows through the Grand Valley of western Colorado, has been
apportioned by the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado
River Basin Compact of 1948. The Rio Grande, which flows through Mesilla
Valley and El Paso Valley, is controlled by the Rio Grande Compact of 1938,
the Rio Grande Convention of 1906, Rio Grande Ratification Convention of
1933, and the Rio Grande, Colorado and Tijuana Treaty of 1944.
Due to energy developments in the western states and assertion of water
rights in Indian Reservations and other federally withdrawn lands, the com-
plexity of water real location in the various basins may be beyond comprehen-
sion. However, as a result of recent litigation in Colorado, the reservation
doctrine is becoming more clearly defined and it may be possible to calculate
the path to implementation of this doctrine as it will affect water quantity
flows.
Finally, it should be pointed out that for each of these case studies, a
different approach dominated the search for identifying and assessing poten-
tial solutions vis-a-vis irrigation return flow. In the case of the Yakima
Valley, a questionnaire distributed to affected parties was developed and
elaborated through a testing process along disciplinary lines, ending up as
a synthesis through critical evaluation by the research team. In the case
of the Middle Rio Grande Valley, while the solutions were defined by disci-
pline, the questionnaire developed provided integrated solutions (rather
than by the disciplinary approach characterizing the Yakima Valley). In
Grand Valley, no particular questionnaire was used as in the previous two
valleys, since the area has been currently experimenting with certain tech-
nological solutions. Thus, as far as technological solutions are concerned,
only an evaluation was made, while institutional alternatives still remain to
be examined. Again, in the case of San Joaquin, no separate study was pre-
pared but only examples have been used throughout the main text in order to
further accentuate types of problems and potential solutions related to
irrigation return flow.
-------
.Yaki ma
il ley
LEGEND
Mesilla Val
and
El Paso Valley
Appropriation
Common Law Riparian
Corrective Rights
| | Reasonable Use
fcpyi| Study Area
Figure 10. State ground water law systems in the western states.
35
-------
In conclusion, the research approach proposed in this section attempts
to link some general premises as to the process of implementing change, while
at the same time narrowing, in the form of the categories suggested in
Figure 8, the gap between the range of problems and the specific requirements
for building the basis for implementation. The sections that follow are also
consistent with the categories of Figure 8 as well as with the overall thrust
of the argument that cumulatively and interactively builds throughout succes-
sive screening of problem description, identification and assessment of
potential solutions, and concludes by outlining some characteristics of the
process of implementation.
-------
SECTION 5
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM
Concern for the quality of our nation's waters is not a new problem.
It is not possible to pinpoint the exact impetus that brought about the per-
ception and definition of a water quality problem and which eventually led to
specific organizing and representation in government. However, obvious
influences include: increased industrialization and urbanization, mounting
evidence of environmental degradation, and the conspicuous failure of past
abatement programs which were often "encumbered with vague or unenforceable
authority (Rosenbaum, 1973)- It seems reasonable to conclude that perception
of the problem came most powerfully on the municipal and industrial levels;
only as the problem became defined and the objective stated—to restore and
maintain the integrity of the nation's waters—did it become clear that the
problem of agricultural water pollution should also be addressed. Agricul-
tural water pollution, then, was not the primary perceived problem, but
became included in the policy process which involved polluting practices
of a much broader scope. As a result, action by the government is focused
on the whole problem of water degradation and on other specific problem
areas, with few references directly to agriculture.
Water quality control has been a broad national objective since the
enactment of P.L. 84-660, the Water Quality Act of 1956. From 1956 until the
late 1960*5, the emphasis has been almost entirely upon control of point
sources of discharge from municipalities and industries. Obviously, these
elements of pollution could be readily identified and various legal and eco-
nomic measures could be designed to induce or compel elimination or reduction
of harmful discharges.
The problems associated with pollution from agricultural uses of water
are by nature much more diffuse and difficult to assess and control than
those of point source introduction. By the mid-1960's, when salinity levels
in the Colorado River began approaching plant tolerance levels in Mexico,
there was widespread awareness of the problems associated with increased
concentrations of salts in the lower Colorado River region and vocal demands
for appropriate rehabilitation. Sedimentation, another nonpoint source
pollutant, was beginning to attract attention in the Columbia River Basin.
Other forms of chemical and suspended pollutants from agriculture were
identified and their damage assessed in various localities all over the
nation. Yet, response by state and local officials with regard to agricul-
tural pollution control programs has been slow because of relative
37
-------
invisibility, localized nature of adverse effects and the earlier absence of
a concerted program by the Federal Government.
Agricultural water quality control has long been part of a substantive
discussion among the various basin states in the West. Problems ranging from
salinity and chemical degradation, sedimentation and other problems associ-
ated with suspended material have been examined predominantly from the phy-
sical contrbl perspective and technologies have been developed to alleviate
or eliminate such problems. This preoccupation becomes particularly import-
ant if one bears In mind that the total land area in the fifty states is 916
million hectares (2,264 billion acres). While land use data vary from year
to year on an average, one-half of this area is classified as "land in farms"
and the remainder is "land not in farms." Urban America occupies about 25
million hectares, so almost 97 percent of the land is rural in nature. All
of the rural land is a potential source of nonpoint pollution, as is a sub-
stantial fraction of the urban land area. The data here are impressive,
especially if one is to point out that over 400 million acres (160 million
hectares) are in cropland and deliver 2 billion tons of sediment annually to
streams and lakes. This sediment includes a large but undefined amount of
the approximately 440 million pounds (200 kilograms) of toxic pesticides
used annually in agriculture. Animal wastes of livestock alone are esti-
mated at about 2 billion tons, which is equivalent to ten times that pro-
duced by humans. As one begins to examine the total quantities of pollutants
that are coming from nonpoint sources, especially in the rural areas, one can
also appreciate the complexity of the problem that must be faced. It is ob-
vious that increasing technology is not going to solve the nation's water
quality problems. Indeed, more and more it is recognized that many of the
gains made in the point source area will not bear fruit in terms of impaired
water use because of the failure to act in the highly significant nonpoint
source area.
Water quality control from irrigation return flows has caused one of the
greatest degrees of disenchantment among state and federal personnel who are
attempting to carry out water quality programs under P.L. 92-500. Since the
time that the first regulations for irrigation return flows were initiated
in 1973, there have been strong, conflicting differences of opinion among
various agencies as to how to deal with water at both state and federal lev-
els of government. More than anything else, many western states have called
for a stop to their programs until EPA adopts what the states consider a
workable approach. Not one western state has completely and enthusiastically
embraced the program of including irrigation return flows as a "point source"
and, thus, subjecting all irrigation to the NPDES program.
We should not attempt to describe here in detail either the agricultural
sources of water pollution or to present in any detailed fashion all the
problems involved with water quality policies. Three particular areas of
concern must direct the argument. The first has to do with the legal imper-
atives as expressed in the mandates of P.L. 92~500. The second has to do
with a broad outline of the physical dimensions of the problem. And, the
last would relate our concern with the organizational preparedness in meeting
the problem, particularly in developing the context for planning, decision-
making and for building the basis for implementation.
38
-------
The Legal Background
Formulation and Legitimation—
The efforts of the sponsoring Congressmen and both House and Senate
committees were devoted to producing a powerful, decisive piece of legisla-
tion which would drastically reduce pollution of our nation's waters.
Therefore, Section 301(a) requires that, except under conditions outlined
in subsequent sections, the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall
be unlawful. During debate in the House of Representatives on its version
of the bill, H.R, 11896, Teno Roncalio, Representative from Wyoming, offered
an amendment exempting return flows from agricultural irrigation (A
Legislative History..., 1972: 651). He argued that this amendment was
important to the credibility of the legislation, since the technology for
identifying and specifically tracing irrigation pollutants did not exist and,
therefore, the bill would be unenforceable in the case of agriculture.
Comment was expressed in favor of the amendment until the representative
from California called attention to the San Luis Drain which dumps highly
polluted irrigation return flows into the San Joaquin River in California.
That single case seemed to sway the opinion, in spite of the thousands of
agricultural users whose impact would be much less significant, and the
amendment was defeated (Ibid.. p. 6528).
Section ^02 of the Act created a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES), by which permits could be issued to allow discharge of
pollutants under specified conditions. By not excluding irrigated agricul-
ture from the provisions of Section 301, it became subject to the permit
program. The ramifications of the failure to pass his amendment have been
clearly outlined by Mr. Roncalio when he stated (Ibid., p. 860-861):
Moreover, the technology to control salinity resulting from
irrigation use is not available. There is no feasible method
of treating irrigation wastes in those cases when Irrigation
discharges can be isolated from natural sources of runoff.
Usually It is impossible to locate a particular discharge and
match it to the proper Irrigator before it percolates into a
ground water reservoir, or returns to the original stream.
The most insurmountable difficulties encountered, however, could
be the administrative problems. The number of federal applica-
tions for all irrigation discharges would be staggering. In
Wyoming alone, between 35,000 and ^0,000 permits would be re-
quired. When applying for a federal discharge permit the
burden of proof would be on the water user to show that the
environment would not be harmed. For those who were not granted
a permit, valuable property rights would be lost without compen-
sation, and this involves serious implications for the courts.
Moreover, the massive bureaucracy needed to process the permit
applications would have uncertain jurisdiction. Would it have
to completely supercede functioning state water right mechanisms
in order to operate effectively? If so, the prior appropriation
doctrine would be reduced to an unrecognizable shambles. This
39
-------
could cause disastrous instability throughout the West among
current water right holders. The effect on investment in-
centives and property values is incalculable. At best, a
phenomenal paper work logjam could be created with negligible
improvement in water quality. '
Even though effluent control may be chosen as the best method
of controlling pollution contributed by industrial and muni-
cipal wastes, it does not appear at present to be a practical
method of controlling nonpoint sources of salinity associated
wi th i rrigation.
The fact that the San Luis Drain case so closely resembled the point
source kind of pollution with which legislators from most parts of the
nation are familiar may account for its powerful influence in their vote
against Roncalio's amendment.
In Senate debate, Mr. Dole, Senator from Kansas, pointed out the fact
that agricultural pollution is generally a nonpoint source. An exchange
between Senator Dole and Senator Muskie, one of the primary sponsors of the
bill, is informative (Ibid., p. 1298-1299):
Mr. Dole: Another question of real concern to many farmers,
stockmen and others in agriculture involves the terms 'point
source' and 'nonpoint source.'
Most sources of agricultural pollution are generally consid-
ered to be nonpoint sources.
My question is: Simply, to what sources of guidance are we
to look for further clarification of the terms 'point source1
and 'nonpoint source'—especially as related to agriculture?
Mr. Muskie: Guidance with respect to the identification of
'point sources' and 'nonpoint sources,' especially as related
to agriculture, will be provided in regulations and guidelines
of the Administrator.
This indicates that it would be EPA's responsibility to clarify the
terms "point" and "nonpoint" source and thereby to determine applicability
of Section 402 permit requirements. Thus, the legislature defeated the pro-
posal to exclude agricultural pollution and passed the problem on to the
Administrator of EPA.
Administration and Application—
On December 22, 1972, regulations were promulgated and published in the
Federal Register (kO FR 5^182) establishing guidelines for State Program
Elements Necessary for Participation in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) (37 FR 28290). Comments received in response to
these regulations and to proposed NPDES application forms indicated a need
to consider the desirability of attempting to extend the permit system to
40
-------
all point sources conceivably covered by the broad definitional framework
established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. EPA's intent to con-
sider: 1) further comments with respect to the NPDES application form for
agricultural discharges, Short Form B; and 2) exclusions from the permit sys-
tem, particularly for agricultural and si1vicultural sources, was indicated
in the Federal Register on December 29, 1972 (37 FR 28765).
On May 3, 1973, EPA proposed a revised Short Form B for agricultural
discharges and proposed classes and categories of siIvicultural and agricul-
tural activities which would not be subject to NPDES permit requirements
(38 FR 10960). On May 22, 1973, regulations establishing policies and pro-
cedures for issuance of NPDES permits by the Federal Government were promul-
gated and published (38 FR 13528). In that publication, Section 125.4 en-
titled Exclusions, provided that NPDES permits were not required for dis-
charges from separate storm sewers composed entirely of storm runoff
uncontamined by industrial or commercial activity. Subsequently, on July 5>
1973, after receiving information, statistics and advice from other federal
agencies, state officials and agricultural groups in response to the May 3,
1973 proposal, EPA issued notice of the availability of the final agricul-
tural application Short Form B and published an amendment to Section 125.k
(38 FR 18000). This amendment provided for an expansion of the exclusions
in that section, eliminating categories of small concentrated animals feed-
ing operations and certain agricultural and siIvicultural activities from
the permit requirement. Specifically, irrigation return flow from sources
of less than 3,000 acres was exempted. The EPA Reaional Administrator or
the Director of a state water pollution control agency could override the
exclusions by identifying individual sources as significant contributors of
pollution. Once so identified, significant contributors of pollution were
required to apply for and comply with NPDES permits (40 CFR 124.11 h(5)).
In promulgating the July 5 regulations, EPA stated its belief that while
some point sources within the excluded categories may be significant contrib-
utors of pollution which should be regulated consistent with the purposes of
the FWPCA, it would be administratively difficult if not impossible, given
federal and state resource levels, to issue individual permits to all such
point sources. In addition, the agency stated that regulation through the
use of site-specific NPDES permits was not appropriate for most of the small
sources covered by the exemption. Essentially, these regulations providing
for exemptions were based upon, EPA's view (a view which it continues to main-
tain is correct) that most sources within the exempted categories present
runoff-related problems not susceptible to the conventional NPDES permit pro-
gram, including effluent limitations. EPA's position was and continues to
be that most rainfall runoff is more properly regulated under Section 208 of
the FWPCA, whether or not the rainfall happens to collect before flowing
into navigable waters. Agricultural runoff frequently flows into ditches
or is collected in pipes before discharging to a stream. EPA contended that
most of these sources are nonpoint in nature and should not be covered by the
NPDES permit program. EPA felt that this was an exercise of limited adminis-
trative discretion in excluding these basically nonpoint sources from the
permit program and the best means for achieving the Congressional intent con-
sistent with the language of the FWPCA.
41
-------
Reaction and Evaluation--
Quite naturally, farmers with more than 3,000 acres of land objected to
the regulations. In Idaho, where the state agency attempted to administer a
permit program, farmers joined together to fight the system in court. They
argued that the 3»000-acre limitation was only arbitrarily chosen without
direct relationship to pollution contribution. Officials in the Department
of Ecology in the State of Washington watched Idaho's experience and decided
to implement a much less objectionable (but, entirely ineffective) program
of issui ng permits on waste water only (excess water which had not been
applied to the fields, but was wasted back into the waterway). This seems
to be a clear indication of the infeasibi1ity of implementing the NPDES pro-
gram as it was outlined in the administrative regulations.
Another attack on the regulations issued by EPA came from the environ-
mental front. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the
exercise of the Administrator's discretion in exempting certain sources of
pollution from the NPDES permit program. In a law suit filed in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, NRDC contended that the Admin-
istrator had failed to meet the legislatively implied obligation to deline-
ate, by regulation or otherwise, between point and nonpoint sources and had
instead simply exempted portions of what remained classified as point
sources. The very inclusion of some sources of irrigation return flow (areas
over 3»000 acres) in the NPDES program is taken to be an implied classifica-
tion of these sources as point sources.
Defendants Train and EPA contended that the exempted categories of
sources are ones which fall within the definition of point source but which
are ill-suited for inclusion in a permit program. Pollutants, EPA maintained,
are best eliminated from agricultural discharges by "process changes" which
prevent pollutants from entering runoff rather than by treating the discharge
by the "end-of-pipe" method. EPA argued that the Act and its legislative
history reflect congressional recognition that such runoff is to be dealt with
in a nonpoint method. Moreover, it was EPA's contention that the tremendous
number of sources within the exempted categories would make the permit pro-
gram unworkable. Faced with thi%s problem the Administrator harmonized the
conflicting demands for regulation of point sources by exercising his dis-
cretion under the permit program to establish the challenged exemptions
(see 7 ERC 1881).
The District Court ruled in favor of NRDC and on June 10, 1975 issued
a final order requiring EPA to propose and promulgate regulations "extending
the NPDES permit system to include all point sources" in the concentrated
animal feeding operation, separate storm sewer, agricultural and silvicul-
tural categories. Under the terms of the order, EPA was to propose regula-
tions extending the permit system to point source discharges in the agricul-
tural and silviculture categories by February 10, 1976.
As part of the effort to carry out the requirements of the court order,
EPA solicited and received information, statistics and advice from other
federal agencies, state and local officials, trade associations, agricultural,
siIvicultural and environmental groups and interested members of the public.
Public meetings were held across the country; those in Denver, Portland
42
-------
(Oregon), Indianapolis, and Atlanta specifically considered the agriculture
and silviculture categories. At each of these meetings, persons representing
both potential permittees and permit issuing agencies voiced significant
opposition to the development of an expanded permit system within the NPDES
program as it had been administered to date. Many commenters pointed out
that such a program would require a massive commitment of resources, both by
the dischargers and by the Issuing agencies, which would not be commensurate
with the modest pollution reduction gained from the program. They also
emphasized that numerical effluent limitations are inappropriate for pollu-
tion abatement from most of these point sources, and they urged EPA to con-
sider alternative pollution control processes and methods as a basis for any
proposed permit system. Finally, several commenters strongly recommended
that EPA reconsider the explicit legislative history of the FWPCA concerning
agricultural nonpoint sources and adapt the proposed regulations to the lan-
guage from that history. In general, most participants strongly recommended
that EPA develop factors to distinguish point sources from nonpoint sources,
and suggested specific criteria to designate most discharges from agricul-
tural activities as nonpoint in nature and thus not subject to the permit
program.
Resolution and Change—
Taking these comments, as well as the legislative history, the statutory
language, the NRDC vs Train decision, and the technical data available on
agricultural activities into consideration, EPA examined the relationship
between the NPDES permit program (which is designed to control and eliminate
discharges of pollutants from discrete point sources) and water pollution
from agricultural activities. On February 23, 1976, EPA proposed a new pro-
gram for dealing with agricultural activities.
The new regulations stated that water pollution from most agricultural
activities is considered nonpoint in nature and thus not subject to any per-
mit requirements. However, discharges of pollutants into navigable waters
through discrete conveyances, which result from the controlled application
of water, are considered agricultural activity point sources. A new section,
124.84, was added to the regulations to set forth the distinction between
point and nonpoint sources.
Agricultural activities, particularly irrigation, which result in surface
discharges: 1) which contain pollutants; and 2) which result from the con-
trolled application of water by any person, and which are not caused or ini-
tiated solely by natural processes as precipitation; and 3) which are dis-
charged from a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance; and 4) which
are directly discharged into navigable waters; are subject to regulation
under Section 402, the NPDES permit program (41 FR 7964).
It is clear that this definition would apply primarily to irrigation
return flow ditches. Although these ditches are considered point sources,
in most cases there are no conventional permit requirements at this time.
Because of the lack of pollution control technology, discharges of agricul-
tural wastes from agricultural activity point sources are proposed to be
permitted by general permit(s). The procedures for issuance of the general
permit(s) will be proposed simultaneously with the promulgation of these
-------
regulations. Unless required by the director of a state water pollution con-
trol agency or by the EPA Regional Administrator under special circumstances,
no owners or operators of agricultural point sources are required to apply
for or obtain individual pollution discharge permits. It is expected that
the director or Regional Administrator will impose individual permit require-
ments on owners and operators only in exceptional cases.
EPA has gone one policy cycle thus far and has established a clear-cut
administrative regulation defining agricultural point sources. There still
remains the question of how the general permits, which are required, will
actually be handled. It is likely that their administration will elicit
reaction from affected parties which may bring further changes. One reaction
to the proposed regulations is already brewing in the western states. Many
in this part of the country contend that the regulations are discriminatory
against farmers who cannot rely on natural precipitation and must use con-
trolled application of water to produce crops, but may not necessarily cause
more pollution than nonirrigation farmers. Such a protest has been regis-
tered by the Colorado River Water Conservation District which argues that
Congress never intended to treat agricultural activities involving irrigation
runoff and return flow as point source pollution (see 7 ERC 1881, Note 4).
One thing is clear: the end is not yet in sight. Considerable discus-
sion, reaction, debate, administrative adjustment, litigation, and legislative
action are likely to take place before the issues of the FWPCA, as it applies
to agriculture, are fully resolved.
Generalizing the Problem of Agricultural Pollution
There are many ways of approaching the problem of potential pollutants
from agricultural cropland. Essentially, there are two primary mechanisms
for pollution by irrigated agriculture: l) direct runoff of applied surface
water; and 2) artificial drainage of irrigation water which has seeped below
the root zone of irrigated crops. In a descriptive fashion, we can see the
potential degradation of water quality through water, land and chemical use
in the descriptive categories of Figure 11. In this scheme, the principal
pollutants associated with direct surface runoff include sediment, phosphates
and pesticides (as well as crop residues and bacteria). Pollutants associ-
ated with artificial drainage are dissolved solids (salinity) and nitrates.
In physical terms, the mechanisms for pollutant loading as well as the
effects of pollutants associated with irrigated agriculture have been ob-
served in a variety of studies. However, the quantification of the causal
relationship between agriculturally derived waste loads and impaired water
quality is very difficult to define since the following factors are crucial
in such a determination: a) the complexity of the waste loading processes;
b) the large number of highly localized conditions affecting waste load
generation; and c) the contribution of the same type of pollutants from
other sources, natural and man-induced, which cannot be quantified in the
literature at this time.
It is interesting to notice that most of the categories described above
have been also referred to in the literature as point source contributors
44
-------
Irrigated Agriculture
Direct Runoff
sediment
phosphates
pesticides
crop residues
bacteria
Artificial Drainage
dissolved solids (salinity)
ni trates
Water Use
Land Use
Use of Chemicals
Figure 11. Potential cause of water quality degradation.
-------
since the dividing line between them and the nonpoint pollution is the extent
to which pollutants are discharged by man-made conveyance. The distinction
between point and nonpoint pollution is not only one of high methodological
importance, but also one that centrally determines the political ramifica-
tions of controlling degradation of water quality'from agricultural sources.
As outlined previously in the discussion of the legal background, the
major vehicle for insuring that point sources comply with the effluent limit-
ations established by EPA pursuant to Section 301 and 304 is Section 402 of
the Act which establishes the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination
System (NPDES). The issuing of permits for the discharge of any pollutants
establishes the conditions under which the term "discharge of a pollutant"
may be traced to any discernible, well-defined and traceable conveyance from
which pollutants are or may be discharged.
It would be torturous to further elaborate what ensuing legal and inter-
pretive arguments have brought about. It is obvious, however, that both the
interpretation of the law as well as prevailing practices confirm the state-
ments made during the hearings concerning the complexity of the water pollu-
tion control legislation. As it was stated then, by Senator Muskie, no bill
consumed so much time, demanded so much attention to detail, and required
such arduous efforts to reach final agreement as did the 1972 Act. The Act,
a document of more than 89 pages of fine print, is indeed one of the most
complicated pieces of legislation ever to emerge from the Congress, and it
appears that it has not been completely understood by some of the legislators
and by some of those charged with implementing the legislation. If nothing
else, there has been and there is still strong disagreement between the
authors of the Act, EPA officials, as well as users at the end of the line,
over many of the key provisions of the Act and over the general water pollu-
tion control strategy to*be followed, especially in western states.
The important argument for us is that the Act set into motion a set of
conditions and an argument that is still being debated in the field and whose
interpretation provides many of the difficulties in efforts to implement what
many people consider impossible standards and criteria. Questions out in the
field have to do with the extent to which the various water quality standards
will be characterized by cooperation and negotiation between government lev-
els; the persons who will participate in such activities; the establishment
of management practices; the actions necessary to implement the particular
requirements; etc.
Forging this new national program for water quality was not a simple act
of interpretation and enforcement. Since it has been under development for
over five years, a diversity of opinions on the goals and the complexity of
achieving water quality has created rather polarized opinions as to the dif-
ferences between the arid West and the humid East; as to the conflicting and
competing purposes of industry and agriculture; as to local versus regional
or national interests; and, as to the variety of myriads of technical,,eco-
nomic, political, and social factors affecting the letter and spirit of the
particular legislation.
-------
Perhaps the most important point in the interpretation of the law has
been the universal recognition that basing compliance and enforcement efforts
on a case-by-case judgment of a particular facility or area of impact on the
existing water quality is both scientifically and administratively difficult.
At the same time, to try to bring together the variety of local conditions
and the particularities involved in the invisible and difficult-to-track-
down categories of agricultural pollution have also generated an argument,
compounded by existing socio-cultura1 practices in the arid West; the legal
limits as to beneficial use of water; and, generally, by the precarious char-
acter of protecting rights highly dependent on varying physical conditions
(in particular the influence of the current drought in the West and how the
argument is interpreted and reinterpreted as to the priorities of maintaining
productivity under adverse ecological conditions).
Yet, the heart of this water quality program remains a permit system
which establishes a distinct new pattern of federal-state relations in water
quality management. This program, which was established by the President in
1970 under the Refuse Act of 1899, was initiated as a means to accelerate
and strengthen clean-up efforts pending new legislation. The permit mecha-
nism had the virtue of establishing for the first time a comprehensive
information-gathering system especially for industrial effluents. At the
same time, it provided for each discharging facility a specific treatment
and timetable to eliminate haggling and uncertainties between government
and industries.
Noble, useful and far-reaching as this provision may have been, the
jumping from the point, well-defined pollution of industry and the permit
system that characterize such an approach to the particularities of agricul-
tural pollution and, therefore, the tracking down of "nonpoint sources" of
pollution required a very difficult methodological and administrative deter-
mination as to what is "point" and what is "nonpoint" pollution, the elabor-
ation of the physical dimensions of the problem, and the agonizing, slow
process of acceptance and enforcement.
It may have been unfortunate, but the permeating spirit of the NPDES
program has created hard feelings between those who insist on the permit
program as a major attack of providing both information and the means for
producing the biggest payoff in water quality and for which implementation
is feasible now; and those who believe that nonpoint sources, such as farm-
land runoff of soil and fertilizer, are impossible to track down, and that a
permit system is essentially uneconomical and in the long run counterproduc-
tive to the efforts of agricultural efficiency. This situation was further
made difficult by the Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train decision,
which in effect forced EPA to issue effluent guidelines for each of the pre-
viously excluded sources, defining treatment necessary by 1977 and 1983- If
discharge permits will have to be issued, given the existing lag in effluent
guideline development and the hard feelings generated by this particular
approach, significant administrative problems are posed that affect imple-
mentation efforts.
In conformance with the 1975 decision, EPA has modified its definition
of poimt sources, but still attempts to exclude the smallest activities.
-------
The dilemma here becomes rather obvious. Given the fact that a number of
studies have already pointed out that regulation of point source discharges
alone will not improve water quality enough to meet the general national
water quality goals, increased urgency permeates a desired comprehensive pro-
gram for removing pollutant loadings from natural sources, unregulated agri-
cultural activities, urban stormwater runoff, and other nonpoint sources. To
deal with nonpoint source pollution, EPA plans to rely upon the regional
comprehensive planning required by Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. However, no additional Section 208 planning agencies have been
funded since July 1, 1975- So, at this time it is not clear whether the
agencies given this planning responsibility have either the necessary author-
ity or access to adequate financial and technical resources to cope with a
nonpoint source problem.
It is apparent by now that the nonpoint sources of pollution loom as an
omnipresent background issue over many of the current state water quality
programs. Since there is a pervasive feeling that pollutants that are not
discharged from identifiable or discrete outflows are often considered out-
side the scope of the state control efforts, there is little regulatory
attention directed towards this enormous quantity of pollutant material which
reaches the nation's streams through runoff, drainage from mines and other
excavations, and return flows from irrigation. In essence, the law has
established a general spirit and approach that conforms with the popular
demand for controlling pollution from all sources (point and nonpoint).
However, the exploration of the character and distribution of major nonpoint
sources requires a better understanding of their potential pollution and of
what can be done. The task is compounded by the inability to track down
exact baseline conditions; and by difficulties in developing a spirit of
cooperation and negotiation between the Federal Government, state authori-
ties, and, finally, the ultimate water users.
By now the point of the above discussion should be obvious: if people
do not agree as to the nature of the problem, the wisdom of certain provisions
of the Act, and as to the feasibility of proposed solutio'ns, then implementa-
tion becomes impossible and a fertile climate of dissention and cross-purpose
negates the achievement of collective goals. However, our approach in the
present study was not to assume that NPDES would be our guiding star. In-
stead, as an interdisciplinary team we began by juxtaposing alternatives and
strategies, by obtaining local responses as to solutions to irrigation return
flow control problems, and by attempting to synthesize what is technically
feasible, legally appropriate and socio-economical ly implementable. Whi.le
the background spirit of P.L. 92-500 looms in all our discussions, the
approach followed began from specific problems, backtracked to appropriate
strategies, and, finally, considered the institutional arrangements and
rearrangements for meeting the quest of implementing policies for controlling
irrigation return flow. • /
PARAMETERS OF INVESTIGATION
The discussion of the parameters of the Irrigation return flow quality
problem revolves around an identification of the particular causes of the
-------
problem in order to establish a basis for identifying potential solutions.
The brief remarks that follow in this section outline legal conditions and
management practices; physical dimensions; and, socio-economic considerations.
Much of the focus in irrigated agriculture has been to expand existing
irrigation systems by increasing the water supply, rather than improving the
use efficiency of existing water supplies to more effectively produce crops
and reduce the quantity of return flows. Farmers generally perceive the sol-
utions to water problems as revolving around more water supply; indeed, many
of the existing institutional mechanisms for assisting irrigated areas faci-
litate this approach. As a consequence, many irrigated areas are overirri-
gated which results in large quantities of irrigation return flows. In many
cases these return flows result in significant water quality degradation. In
such cases, there is a direct relation between the inefficient use of water
and the resulting water pollution. Alleviating water quality degradation
from irrigated agriculture will, in most cases, require increasing the effi-
ciency of water use, which involves improving water management practices.
In improving water management practices, there exist a number of institu-
tionalized constraints Which make the actual acceptance of proposed practices
difficult. Such practices require that irrigation return flow quality con-
trol include both dimensions of the resource problem--water quantity and
water quality. Separate categories of laws have evolved for each dimension,
each taking on characteristics which contribute to the problem and compound
efforts to improve the quality of return flows. These practices must employ
a program that would incorporate cooperation between organizational entities
and the individual user, something which is not now present. It is these
constraints that constitute a major part of the problem at hand.
Problems of irrigation return flow quality are compounded by the speci-
fic perceptions of individual farmers regarding pollution and the geographic
significance of the problem. Farmers know that using irrigation water will
cause some degradation, but the point at which it becomes significantly
detrimental and who is responsible are a major source of contention. Many
farmers either do not perceive the consequences of their action or they
believe that with the existing means of irrigating (which are the correct
means), the level of pollution is natural and, therefore, acceptable. There
is also the lack of a broader perception involving the regional nature of
the problem, since farmers are mainly concerned about their own property.
The critical point is that a water user's perception of the farming situation
and the problem of water quality in particular dictates how that person will
accept any innovative technology to solve a given "problem."
The above discussion relates some of the difficulties in gaining popular
support for the necessity to alleviate water quality degradation from irri-
gated agriculture. The heart of the matter and a major cause of the problem
is the use of too much water; thus, a central constraint to improving water
use efficiency in the West is the present system of water law administration.
Water is allocated, distributed and administered under a body of law which
grants to the user a water right synonymous to the property right interest
one can acquire to land. The water right is not one of absolute ownership,
but rather one for the use of water only and subject to specific conditions
-------
and concepts which theoretically are prescribed to protect the public and
other users.
Until the past few decades, water used for irrigation was not consider-
ed a type of use that required strict application and enforcement of the law
to achieve water quality goals. In fact, many of the concepts and conditions
provided guidelines for allocation and distribution with implementation car-
ried out when the water right was granted and thereafter only when severe
abuse occurred or another user complained.
The primary elements of the water quantity law which contribute to both
the problem of degraded return flows and efforts to improve the quality are:
•Failure to enforce legal conditions for water use, namely, beneficial
use and nonwaste.
•Constraints in the law which prevent the transfer of excess and saved
water to other lands or users where it could more effectively be used.
•Lack of adequate recognition of the legal duty to include water quality
control as an attribute of the water right to be enforced particularly
by irrigated districts.
•Restrictions or deficiency in the law on the use of low-cost funding
from state/federal programs for water quality control.
These four factors provide the explanation for water user conduct as well as
constraints to adoption of more efficient physical and technical solutions
that may not only improve the quality of return flows, but also increase
crop production.
The doctrine of prior appropriation has led water users into a continu-
al diversion of their full "water right" for fear of loss of this right if
the full amount were not used. Therefore, users have been unwilling to sell,
rent or lease any portion of their water right, which could have lead to
economic benefits to both parties, as well as more efficient use of the
resource. There has been no market for reallocating irrigation water.
Farmers have also been able to pass on to downstream water users part of the
costs of production in the form of pollution.
The present institutional arrangement allocates water on the basis of a
priority of rights rather than on the value of use. The price of water is
generally the cost of its conveyance to the farm and does not represent the
value of opportunities foregone. The result is that the use of water is not
competitive; it is not allocated to its highest valued use; and its rela-
tively low price causes it to be excessively applied.
With the exception of irrigation water, farm inputs are allocated
through markets. Labor and capital, for example, are allocated and priced
through markets according to the value of their use. Consequently, water
tends to be relatively cheap, so that profit-maximizing farmers rationally
substitute water for capital and labor (i.e., water management) in the
50
-------
production process. The result is an overapplicat ion of water with associ-
ated return flow pollution. Irrigation return flow pollution also results
from the avoidance by farmers of some costs of production. The profit-
maximizing farmer attempts to minimize production costs. In so doing, he
may select production methods and techniques which are low cost to him, but
polluting to downstream water users. Alternative production methods and
techniques may be less polluting but of higher cost to the farmer. By
selecting the lowest cost methods and techniques, the farmer passes on part
of the costs of production to downstream water users in the form of water
pol1ut ion.
Irrigated agriculture is a collective enterprise involving all of the
users. Improving existing water management practices, whether to alleviate
water quality degradation or more effectively utilize existing water supplies
to increase crop production, certainly requires collective action. There
exist a number of organizational entities that administer irrigation, but,
generally, there is a lack of explicit rules established for the management
of this resource with regard to quality. There also exists a lack of com-
munication and coordination between agencies and districts, and the farmers
with regard to how the water should be managed. As a consequence of the lack
of an explicit institutional framework surrounding this problem and certain
individual perceptions that do not enhance a specific water quality manage-
ment ethos, implementing a program of irrigation return flow quality manage-
ment can be expected to be a very difficult task, further complicated by the
economic and legal conditions outlined above.
Finally, in the context of the case studies, the approach for implement-
ing feasible irrigation return flow water quality policies recognizes that
each area has its own unique feature. A thorough understanding of the physi-
cal dimensions of the problem and its effects is required in each case.
Problems which may appear similar on first appraisal will generally show
quite distinct differences on deeper investigation.
The four areas investigated in this study to illustrate the variety of
problems that exist and the diverse approaches to the solutions of those
problems represent a continuum of circumstances. Grand Valley, San Joaquin
and the Middle Rio Grande Valleys are recognized as having "salinity prob-
lems," but the nature of those problems are quite different. In the Grand
Valley, irrigation of the soils overlying the saline Mancos Shale has
caused a rise in the water table with subsequent salination of the soil and
reduced production from lower-lying lands in the Valley. However, the prob-
lem is not confined to the Valley alone, as saline water in contact with the
shale is displaced into the river by incoming water from deep percolation
and seepage. Each year approximately 700,000 tons of salt (or 10-12 tons
per irrigated acre) are added to the river as it passes through the Valley,
adding to the burden of downstream water users.
In the San Joaquin Basin, the problem has a different nature in each
of the two physiographic areas. In the Tulare Lake Basin, which now has no
outflow, salt accumulates in the soil and ground water of the basin to the
detriment of agricultural production and ground water quality. In the San
Joaquin Valley to the north, the concentrating effect of Irrigation is making
51
-------
the water unsuitable for downstream users, and is causing a deterioration in
ground water quality and subsurface return flows.
The Middle Rio Grande Valley is faced with the two-sided problem of an
increase in the concentration of salts in the river with distance down the
Valley, coupled with an increase in soil salinity. Although the salt concen-
tration is increasing because of the concentrating effect of irrigation, the
salt load is decreasing as salts applied in the irrigation water are being
retained in the soils and ground water. Not only is the river suffering,
but the land, particularly in the lower Valley, is suffering due to soil
salination, with a consequent depression in crop yields and a move to lower
valued crops.
The Yakima River suffers from high levels of nitrates, phosphates, sedi-
ment, temperature, and coliforms—all associated with agricultural activity.
Apart from aesthetic objections to the algal growth and sediment, and the
significant deterioration in the fish habitat, economic costs are incurred
in irrigation intake screen cleaning, sediment removal from hydraulic
structures, the wear on pumps, sprinkler heads and pipes, and in the reduc-
tion of productivity associated with topsoil and fertilizer losses. The
selection of the four sites for an articulation of our approach represent
not only a range of irrigation flow problems, but also a combination of legal
systems for water allocation and administration of surface and ground waters
intrastate and interstate; a variety of socio-economic conditions; and, a
spectrum of cultural practices.
52
-------
SECTION 6
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
The basic premises of the process for identifying solutions have been
outlined in Section b. There, it was indicated that the search for "feasi-
ble1' solutions requires an integration of the provisions of the law with
the recipients' desires through appropriate institutional linkages. Through
a combination of a review of literature (based on disciplinary search), site
visits and interdisciplinary exchange, the team assembled an initial list of
"solutions" concerning irrigation return flow quality control. The search
for "appropriate" solutions was, then, part of a screening that considered
such factors as (see also Figure 4 and 6): a) technical soundness; b) eco-
nomic viability; c) legal pertinence; d) social acceptability; and d) politi-
cal feasi bi1i ty.
It should also be recalled that in arriving at appropriate solutions,
the team has also previously outlined critical parameters of the problem;
explicated the provisions of the law; and, determined responsible organiza-
tions, affected individuals and related agencies. In addition to the project
team, further sensitivity was obtained through interaction with state and
federal agency personnel; irrigation water management; and water users.
The initial selection of solutions along the characteristics suggested
in Figure k allowed for an initial elimination of nonappropriate or ill-
advised solutions. Eventually, an iterative process of assessment and
evaluation provided the team with alternative solutions which range from
those which are wholly technical to those which are purely institutional
(e.g., creation of water markets). This very process of generating (and
assessing and evaluating) solutions becomes the vital link between the prob-
lem of agricultural pollution and of attainable strategies for implementing
P.L. 92-500.
TYPES AND RANGE OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
The range of possible solutions to irrigation return flow pollution is,
of course, a function of the parameters of the problem identified in the pre-
vious section. Potential solutions are discussed in this section in terms of
the causes of the problem.
53
-------
There are a number of potential solutions for controlling the quantity
and quality of irrigation return flow. The irrigation system may be subdi-
vided into the water delivery subsystem, the farm subsystem, and the water
removal subsystem. The use of efficient practices in the conveyance canals
and pipelines, as well as improving on-farm water management, will minimize
the problems in the water removal system. In most cases, the key to minimiz-
ing irrigation return flow quality problems is to improve water management
practices on the croplands. The water delivery subsystem can be improved by
lining canals and laterals, using closed conduits for water transportation,
providing adequate control structures, and installing flow measuring
devi ces.
Improved practices that can be used on the farm include judicious use
and application or placement of fertilizers; use of slow-release fertilizers;
controlling water deliveries across the farm; use of improved irrigation
application methods (e.g., subsurface application, sprinkler irrigation, or
trickle irrigation); control of soil evaporation; use of a pumpback system
to allow recycling of surface return flows; erosion control practices (e.g.,
contour farming); and irrigation scheduling to insure that the proper amounts
of water are applied at the times required by the plants. In the water re-
moval subsystem, open drains and tile drainage can be used to collect return
flows, which can then be subjected to treatment on a large area or basinwide
basis, if necessary.
Identifying appropriate technological solutions must be related to the
nature of the problem, i.e., water quality degradation as a result of surface
or subsurface return flows, or both. Knowing the sources of pollution, then
potential solutions can be identified. The appropriateness of such solutions
will be related to other "site specific" physical parameters, as well as
historical irrigation methods and practices in the area, and the perception
of the users regarding the necessity for change. In addition to informing
the water users of the existing irrigation return flow problems, it becomes
necessary to demonstrate appropriate technologies in order to gain farmer
acceptance. This phase, as well as areawide implementation, could easily be
hampered by the lack of sufficient technological assistance and by the legal
constraints on the use of low-cost government funding to achieve water qual-
ity improvements at the farm level. Improved irrigation water management
practices will almost invariably result in reduced demand for water diversions.
The real difficulty in gaining water user acceptance lies in solving the prob-
lem of who benefits from the saved water. At the present time, the irrigator
cannot benefit from the water saved by improved irrigation water management
practices. Consequently, little progress in water quality control of irri-
gation return flows can be expected until the water right issue is addressed.
One of the viable alternatives for producing a positive incentive for
water users to benefit from improving their irrigation system is to establish
a market for irrigation water. In order to minimize the disruption of the
present institutional arrangement, the market form identified as having the
greatest potential is a water rental market. The demand for rental water
would represent its addition to the total value of output per additional unit
of water. The market supply schedule would represent the water right hold-
er's increasing opportunity cost of using the water himself rather than
-------
renting it. The market equilibrium price would be greater than the current
costs of conveyance. Those demanding and supplying would have an economic
incentive to use water more efficiently. That is, a rental market would in-
crease the price of water to its marginal value in production and would
encourage more use of labor and capital (i.e., water management) in combina-
tion with the water, thus reducing return flow pollution.
Such an arrangement would take into account the present structure of
water rights and allotments. Those with water rights or allotments, however,
would be allowed to rent surplus water to other users without jeopardizing
their rights or allotments in the future. In most states, such a market
could be created by removing the legal and physical uncertainties associated
with such transfers under the present system. Transfers within irrigation
districts of excess or saved waters require changes in both Federal
Reclamation and some state laws.
With regard to economic solutions, further discussion is needed to
illustrate this particular disciplinary input. Water utilized for irrigation
can be conceptualized as passing through three phases: diversion, application
and discharge, as shown in Figure 12. The water is diverted from a stream,
applied to crops and that portion not consumptively used returns to the
stream. Irrigation return flow quality is a function of the water's travels
from diversion to discharge. The amount of pollution resulting from the
irrigation process obviously depends upon a large array of variables, such
as soil type, slope of field, type of crop, stage of crop growth, irrigation
management, and quantity of water applied. The present discussion focuses on
the management and quantity of irrigation water as the most critical
vari ables.
In general, the amount of return flow pollution is positively correlated
with the quantity of irrigation water and negatively correlated with the
management of irrigation water, as shown in Figure 13(a) As water is applied
beyond the consumptive use requirements of the crop (c.u.), return flow pol-
lution tends to increase at an increasing rate with additional water up to a
point of application beyond which it increases at a decreasing rate. The
relative position of this relationship depends upon the level of water man-
agement, so that curve A corresponds with a low level of management and
curve B with a high level.
Diversion
Application
Discharge
Figure 12. Phase of i rrigation water use.
55
-------
Pollution Level
(units/acre)
0 Quantity of Water q
(units/acre)
(a) Pollution Function
Price
($)
0 Quantity of Water
(total units)
(b) Market
Price
($)
0 Quantity of Water q,
(units/acre)
(c) Farmer
Figure 13- Present irrigation/pollution relation.
56
-------
In the western United States, irrigation water is allocated by the
Appropriation Doctrine or a modification of that doctrine. Under this doc-
trine, rights are determined on a "first in time, first in right" basis.
The basis for establishing a right is the beneficial use of unappropriated
water. While in theory the Appropriation Doctrine allows for both the trans-
fer of water rights as well as simply the transfer of the water alone, a num-
ber of impediments exist which effectively preclude such transfer in most
areas. In some states, irrigation water is tied to the land. Also, in
order to develop many irrigable areas, states have often allowed the United
States Bureau of Reclamation to appropriate large portions of the available
water supply for irrigation projects. The terms of contracts in these pro-
jects may prohibit water transfers in order to insure repayment of construc-
tion costs. Finally, water transfers are impeded by the hydrologic uncer-
tainties of most systems. That is, the physical interrelationships of water
users may not be well defined so that effects of third party transfers are
subject to varying legal rulings.
Since the appropriation cost of irrigation water is zero and the convey-
ance cost per unit of water is generally constant, the aggregate supply curve,
S|_, under the present institutional arrangement is a horizontal line at the
level of the conveyance cost, P|_> out to the total quantity of water avail-
able for use, Q[_. At QL> the supply curve becomes vertical (Figure 13(b))-
Summation of the demand of all water right holders at any point in time
yields the equivalent of a market demand curve. As the demand for water in a
given river basin increases, the market demand curve shifts outward until &|_
is reached (Figure 13(t>)). At that level of demand, the river's waters are
completely allocated and no further water rights are issued.
With a normal downward sloping demand curve, d|_ in Figure 13(c), the
individual farmer will rationally demand \ un'ts of water per acre at the
average conveyance cost of PL per unit of water. He will apply for and re-
ceive a right for that quantity as long as water is available. The actual
allocation will depend on additional physical and legal considerations but
the tendency will be towards an allocation of QL units per acre of irrigation
water. If the level of water management corresponds with curve B in Figure
13-a» then the present allocation system results in an irrigation return flow
pollution level of SL units per acre.
Adjustments to the problem of irrigation return flow quality can be
categorized according to their incidence on the three phases of irrigation
water use shown in Figure 12. In general, these adjustments deal with the
application and discharge phases of irrigation water use. The permit system
is directed towards the third phase of irrigation water use. That is, it
attempts to regulate the quality of water discharged from irrigated farms.
Irrigation return flows, however, are diffuse and not easily identified with
their source. Both surface and subsurface return flows freely mingle from a
multiple of sources so that measurements and identification of pollution
sources are extremely difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, the permit
system does not seek to reduce pollution to its optimum level, but rather to
license an arbitrary level of pollution discharge. Indirectly, this mecha-
nism may affect the relative price of water and, thus, the profit maximizing
57
-------
mix of inputs, but no necessary relation exists between monitoring discharges
and the efficient allocation of agricultural resources.
More recently, attention has focused on the application phase of irriga-
tion water use. Here, the mechanism of adjustment has been to improve on-
farm management of water. In general, this entails the addition of capital
and labor inputs to improve the efficiency of water use and reduce water
pollution resulting from poor farming practices. This approach is often
expensive and involves detailed studies and direct government intervention
to implement. The major problem with this mode of adjustment is that unless
the farmer is not currently maximizing profits, then reducing pollution by
changing the mix of inputs will require subsidization of the farmer. This
adjustment generally implies reducing the farmer's cost of labor and/or cap-
ital investment through a subsidy. Moreover, this approach involves exten-
sive and, generally, expensive investigation to determine the appropriate
new mix of inputs.
Finally, this discussion leads to the consideration of methods for reduc-
ing return flow pollution through adjustments in "the first or diversion phase
of Irrigation water use. If excessive amounts of water are being combined
with other inputs, then the indication is that this resource is underpriced.
That is, if return flow pollution results from an improper mix of inputs,
then the cause may be that the price of water (py) is too low.
Suppose a water rental market is created such that nonwater right
holders could rent water from those with water rights without jeopardizing
those rights. Water right holders acting as suppliers of rental water would
have an upward sloping supply curve, SR, representing increasing opportunity
costs as shown in Figure 1**.b. This supply curve represents the quantity
of water that water right holders would rent rather than use at each price.
The rental market demand curve, DR, represents the aggregate marginal value
product of irrigation water to nonright holders. The equilibrium quantity,
Q.R, represents the amount of water right holders would rent to nonright
holders.
Individual water right holders would adjust to the rental market equili-
brium price, PR, by reducing the quantity of water irrigated from q^ to q^.
That is, water right holders could realize a greater return from their right
to q|_ units per acre and renting the surplus (q\_ - q^) units per acre. The
derived demand for irrigation water with a rental market, dR, differs from
the present demand curve, d|_, in that it is horizontal at the market price
level beyond q^, as shown in Figure 1*».c.
If nonright holders are assumed to have identical irrigation demand
curves to those with water rights, dL, then each nonright holder will also
rationally use *•!& units of water per acre at a rental market equilibrium
price of PR. The effect on irrigation return flow pollution is that each
farmer would cause SR rather than $\_ units of pollution per acre, as shown
in Figure I4.a. On the other hand, there are more irrigators. The net
effect of the rental market depends upon the ratio of the proportional in-
crease in the number of irrigators to the proportional decrease in the
58
-------
Pollution Level
(units/acre)
c.u.
Quantity of Water
(units/acre)
(a) Pollution Function
Price
($)
0
Quantity of Water
(total units)
(b) Market
Price
($)
Quantity of Water
(units/acre)
(c) Farmer
Figure 14. Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market.
59
-------
pollution of each irrigator. If the ratio is less than one, then total
pollution would decline.
Finally, if water quality is considered, the supply function may be
more steeply sloped. Society as a whole has an interest in how water is
used, so that an additional cost is associated with the use of water for
irrigation—a pollution cost to society. The sum of the private and social
marginal costs of irrigation water results in a rental market supply schedule
above the supply curve $R. The optimum application of irrigation water per
acre by an individual farmer would thus be reduced, which in turn would re-
duce the per acre pollution level.
The point is that a freely operating market for water would reallocate
water automatically and without outside interference. The consequence would
be a reduction in the level of return flow pollution both as a function of
the reduced level of diverted water and improved management. That is, estab-
lishing a market for water would reallocate the quantity of water used for
irrigation, thus reducing the return flow pollution level. This may also
shift pollution curve A downward, thus reducing pollution below SR.
The private market solution may, however, not achieve a social optimum.
Return flow pollution represents an external diseconomy to society as the
actual cost of use is greater than simply the private cost. Given the pri-
vate market adjustments, additional pollution reducing activities may still
be warranted. Here at the margin, then, is the proper place for extra-
market adjustments such as tax subsidy schemes, legal measures and engineering
works of the government.
A market allocation might not be sufficient to correct all return flow
pollution. Farmers would still have a profit motive for externalizing all
possible production costs, including the costs of controlling pollution.
Water users (or irrigation districts and companies) should be required to
internalize costs imposed on other water users, public or private, through
adoption of standards and criteria for beneficial use and creation of pro-
grams (voluntary incentives),and penalties (compulsory compliance) that en-
able water administrators or-adversely affected parties to employ. In
economic terms, this means the imposition of taxes and subsidies. The' pai—
ticular form and application of such taxes and subsidies can only be speci-
fied for particular cases. In general, taxes can be utilized to adjust the
price of water to approximate a market price, thus inducing farmers to be
more efficient in its use. Taxes can also be used to penalize farmers for
return flow pollution, but monitoring costs are typically prohibitive. Sub-
sidies in the form of direct payments or technical assistance and capital
improvements appear most applicable for improving on-farm management water.
Taxes and subsidies may be jointly applied, for example, with a tax on water
to approximate its market value and the revenues from this tax being used to
subsidize farmers to adopt less polluting methods and techniques of water use.
The argument made above concerning legal considerations involved in prob-
lems of water quality has set the stage for potential solutions improving the
law's sensitivity and ability to address such problems. Essentially, identi-
fiable solutions include: adoption and enforcement of criteria for beneficial
60
-------
use, waste and water duty; removal of constraints concerning transfer of
excess or saved waters within irrigation districts, promotion of low-cost
funding; internalization of costs through adoption of standards for water
use, creation of programs, or compulsory compliance, all of which would en-
able employment by water administrators or adversely affected parties.
Finally, the various alternatives must take into consideration both
individual attitudes and the organizational structure that provides the
rules and mechanisms which influence individual behavior. For the individual,
potential solutions must involve an awareness of the critical character of
irrigation return flow. On the other hand, for the organizational context,
solutions revolve around the creation of mechanisms and practices which can
facilitate the adoption of means for acceptable water quality standards.
Awareness by the farmer entails two conditions. First, the awareness
should be towards specific on-farm management procedures which enhance water
quality. In addition, a holistic approach as to why improved water quality
will enhance not only his neighbor's operation, but also his own, must be
explicated. Clean waterishould be seen as beneficial to the farmer and this
benefit must be viewed as one that can be attained only through an areawide
involvement of water users.
Instilling this individual behavior as a public good can only be accomp-
lished when the organizational structure supporting the farmer embraces
broader and firm commitment to cleaner water. This "can be done by exploit-
ing the existing structure; by changing or restructuring present arrangements;
or by adding to the existing framework. The use of existing mechanisms such
as the extension service, SCS, the local mass media, Co-ops, etc., can pro-
vide communication and information networks from which the individual farmer
can become aware of the problem and the solution. Yet, some valleys do not
have a we 11-organized system of communication by which water quality condi-
tions are adequately processed, investigated and disseminated. Such an
organization can be established either by modifying the existing structure
or creating a new one altogether. This organization should work with farm-
ers, agencies and the public in such a manner that it serves as a focal point
for water quality information; and as a nodal point through which flow and
exchange of information can be transferred into coherent, collectively
arrived at policies.
It should be noted that in the juxtaposition of individual and organi-
zational approaches, the assumption was made that acceptance of new manage-
ment procedures will follow dissemination of knowledge and awareness. How-
ever, this is not always the case. Since there is not a necessary or
sufficient causal relationship between "appropriate" and "acceptable"
solutions, systems of rewards and penalties must also be established in
order to provide support, to reinforce desired behavior, and generally,
in order to make sure that proposed solutions will not die because of
neglect or lack of sustained implementation by the users. Yet, as with all
other solutions, these proposed monitoring and enforcement mechanisms must
have an effective say or part in any decision-making process regarding return
flow quality control. For, at the end, the pursuing of an effective water
policy is part of a larger commitment and of an ethos that combines
61
-------
individual motivation and economic opportunities within an organizational
context that makes possible collective social action and timely technical
interventi ons.
As indicated earlier, the alternative solutions proposed for assessment
and evaluation ranged from those which were wholly technical (e.g., rehabil-
itation of distribution systems) to those which were institutional. Some
were combinations of technical and institutional measures which would cause
improvements in quality of return flows (e.g., cost-sharing arrangement for
improved irrigation facilities). They can be generally classed as: a) those
directed to sources of water, generally, those which would increase supply;
b) those concerned with the influent, i.e., the water diverted to agricul-
ture; c) those associated with the management of land and water on farms;
and d) those which were concerned with the effluent, i.e., the return flow.
We have now reached an important junction in our thinking. It was
emphasized above that there seems to be a widespread agreement that as far
as agricultural pollution is concerned, an NPDES approach seems to be a
cumbersome, if not unrealistic, policy device. In this context, it is import-
ant to relate two different approaches that seem to emerge with regard to
the problem of controlling return flow. One may be described as a general-
ized approach or effluent control approach whose characteristics are:
a) a system of permits which everybody agrees may end up as an administrative
nightmare; b) the coverage of a wide area or a system of at least statewide
implementation; and c) emphasis on monitoring and on a corrective, if not
punitive, approach.
On the other hand, another approach has already been described by
Skogerboe and Radosevich (1977) as the hrfluent Control Approach, or the
localized emphasis approach, whose characteristics are: a) the resolution
of the problem at the source (preventive approach); b) emphasis on narrowly
prescribed or designated areas; and c) voluntary compliance through
i ncenti ves.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages. The effluent
control approach has the potential advantage that it is administratively
efficient, although it may have low effectiveness with reference to specific
or localized areas. On the other hand, the influent approach, while it may
be highly effective, probably has difficulties of administration (low effi-
ciency). In either case, it is obvious that the general premises introduced
by the NPDES system concerning agriculture have created major reaction and
since limited agreement can be found particularly wtih regard to technical
solutions, perhaps a mixed approach may be more appropriate. By using both
local or limited areas and by working in a parallel fashion on general
guidelines, it may be possible to build both cumulative findings as to ques-
tions of agricultural pollution and also exprience as to specific steps re-
quired for irrigation return flow quality control efforts.
62
-------
COMBINATIONS OF SOLUTIONS
The previous discussion on solutions to problems of irrigation return
flow quality points out that when all is said and done, the heart of the
matter remains resistance by the public as a result of disagreement as to
the existence or extent of the problem and as to perceived advantages from
a variety of solutions. But, more important, "solutions" do not operate
in neat categories, or hierarchical systems of categorical approaches.
Technical, legal, economic, and social approaches are all intertwined with
limitations, overlaps and trade-offs within and between categories.
There are innumerable possible combinations of solutions to the irriga-
tion return flow problem. Most adjustments suggested here could not be
implemented independently of other physical, economic, legal, or social con-
cerns. Packages, or combinations of solutions, are difficult to construct
since they tend not to be generalizable, but situation-specific. One cannot
provide a complete listing of such combi.nations. Brief illustrations have
been used in the case studies in order to show the types of mixes which would
be likely and the realistic adjustments that must be made if implementation
steps are to be followed.
It soon became obvious that no one alternative solution will suffice in
the attempt to solve or at least materially alleviate the problem of degrada-
tion of quality of water used in irrigated agriculture. It also seems
obvious that no solution or combination of solutions can be implemented
which will entirely solve the problem of polluted return flows from agricul-
tural lands. Some degradation of quality is inevitable if water is used for
irrigation. There will be some increase in salinity, in sediment, and in
other foreign materials simply because water has been combined with soils,
fertilizers, seeds, and other inputs in agricultural enterprises. We must
recognize this inevitable impact on water quality and find the acceptable
"trade-offs" which will allow water to be used in agriculture.
The combinations of alternative solutions are finite, but very numerous.
Development of the combinations always requires imagination, analysis, evalua-
tion, and finally, decision about what is "best." Again, the case studies
exemplify in some detail the effort to develop "packages" and the attempt to
evaluate solutions and combinations of solutions appropriate to the particu-
lar regions.
63
-------
SECTION 7
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Following the identification of potential solutions for return flow
quality problems, the team directed its efforts to their systematic assess-
ment. It was understood that alternative solutions would be more or less
acceptable (and thus imp lamentable) depending on their impacts on the
affected parties, "testing" procedures were devised to determine technical,
economic, political, and social acceptability of alternative solutions. As
indicated previously, these procedures involved: a) the project team;
b) state and federal agency personnel; c) irrigation water managers; and
d) water users.
"SCREENING" SOLUTIONS
A first evaluation of solutions was done by the project team. Composed
as it was of engineers, economists, sociologists, and an attorney, the team
was able to judge alternative solutions in terms of technical, economic,
legal, and social feasibility (per criteria outlined in Figure 4). In-
appropriate and ill-advised solutions were weeded out, though the number was
not great. Alternatives with potential for significant impacts on the qual-
ity problem and those without prohibitive costs were retained for evaluation
by others. The team wished to present the widest possible range of alterna-
tives to succeeding evaluators.
A second evaluation was accomplished by federal and state agency per-
sonnel, chiefly those presently or prospect!vely involved in administration
of water quality improvement programs. The alternative solutions were
screened by those with technical and legal expertise, a group with a special
concern for administration of laws and programs. This group tended to sort
out those solutions which did not fit within the framework of existing laws,
rules and regulations and which would therefore be difficult to implement.
The list of alternatives was reduced, but not so as to exclude some solutions
which would be possible with changes in laws, rules and regulations.
The third evaluation was completed by managers of water supply agencies
(e.g., irrigation companies and districts) and their boards of directors.j
These were individuals having responsibility for distribution of water among
farms of members and patrons and for maintenance of system facilities. Be-
cause they are potentially responsible for administration of revised rules
governing diversions and use of water, they tended to resist measures of
control. But they were aware of water quality problems; they were generally
6k
-------
convinced of possibilities for improved use of water; and they tended to
favor quality control measures located and administered at their level rather
than at higher or lower levels.
Finally, the fourth evaluation was done by the farmers who use water in
irrigation of crops. They were interviewed separately; there was discussion
of the return flow quality problem; and potentially useful solutions were
outlined and discussed. These individuals, though alarmed by present efforts
to control their use of water, showed both ability and willingness to compre-
hend problems of water quality and deal with them. They were very practical
in their judgments of implementabi1ity of the various alternative solutions,
and they tended to favor those measures aimed at improved use of water in
agriculture. It was these measures over which they had some control.
The overall response to all such solutions depended somewhat on who was
doing the evaluating. Administrators were more inclined to favor the tech-
nical solutions which were most familiar to the agency personnel. They
were inclined to prefer measures that they could control and administer,
since their experience was largely with water resource development and dis-
tribution. Users tended to prefer those solutions which emphasized manage-
ment of water in agriculture. They were aware of some inefficiencies in
water use, some nonconservative uses of water and land, and they knew of
possibilities for improved management. Managers of distribution systems
were aware of inadequacies in their systems and liked proposals for improve-
ment. They tended to favor the influent control measures, i.e., solutions
affecting diversion and allocation of water among users. Farmers understood
these solutions, too, but were understandably concerned about possible reduc-
tions in their annual allotments.
Probably the greatest support was found for those solutions that dealt
with improved management of water in agriculture. There was appreciation
in most of the project areas for the efficacy of those measures that affected
on-farm use. But there was also appreciation for solutions proposing new
controls on diversions and use, in two of the project areas water allocations
are usually large, i.e., there is an abundant supply. The managers of dis-
tribution systems and farmer-users of water know that greater efficiencies
in water use can be achieved. Their concern is for loss of rights which have
been long held and carefully guarded. There was some interest in water
markets, as a means for allocating supplies, but unfami1iarity with such a
measure in some areas prevented enthusiastic support.
Before presenting characteristic packages of solutions, we must add a
few words as to the process of field assessment. To guide this assessment by
persons in the "field" (i.e., federal and state agency personnel concerned
with the administration of water law, managers of irrigation districts, as
well as individual users), a "rationale for discussion" was developed. This
"rationale" and, at the same time, guidelines for introducing the content of
field discussions, is reproduced in Table 1. The format provides the basis
for approaching all persons interviewed in the same way, i.e., with the same
objectives, same explanations and the same questions. It was an approach
essential to the reduction of bias and the acquisition of information which
could be used in comparing responses to alternative solutions.
65
-------
TABLE I. RATIONALE AND DISCUSSION OUTLINE OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
With Water Use Administrators, Distribution System Managers and Water Users
I. We have asked you to meet with us as participants in a research project which may be important to the
use of water in agriculture.
A. We are inquiring about the quality of water used in irrigation and returned to the source.
B. We are considering the alternative means and mechanisms for maintaining that quality.
C. We are asking water users to help us evaluate those means and mechanisms that may be employed to
maintain quality.
II. We are all aware of the growing public interest in water quality. Evidence of this interest is the
Water Quality Control Act of 1972, which expresses our intent to clean up the nation's waters.
A. We are directed to establish quality standards, identify pollution sources, measure and specify
the pollutants, and take action to control waste water discharges.
B. Various governmental agencies, chiefly the EPA, were given the responsibility for implementing
the Act.
III. We are also aware that a use of water which is important to us, i.e., irrigation of crops, causes
degradation of stream quality as silty or salty return flows find their way to the source.
A. Some of this kind of pollution is inevitable—it is a natural consequence of use of water for
irrigation.
B. But some return flows are unnecessarily silt laden or saline. They are a consequence of improper
management of water in diversion, distribution and/or application of water to land.
C. We know that we must take action to remedy these pollution problems. But what should we do?
IV. The EPA, acting at the instruction of Congress and without a very clear or specific understanding of
irrigated agriculture, tried to implement a control program—a discharge permit system.
A. This system does not appear appropriate to agriculture and it is not working.
B. They now seem ready to consider something else—a different approach to maintenance of quality of
streams where water is diverted for irrigation.
C. They have asked us to find and to evaluate alternatives to the discharge permit system.
D. We have committed ourselves to a search for workable alternatives and we seek the involvement of
water users in this search. For an implementable policy or program for pollution control must be
acceptable to those who will be affected.
7. Now, the Valley has been identified as an irrigated area with a problem—a problem of .
A. Do you agree? Is it your understanding that the quality of return flows from agriculture is less
than desirable? Do you expect that something will have to be done to improve return flows?
(Solicit the expression of opinions about the nature and extent of the problem.)
VI. We have accepted the generally held view (and the supporting evidence) that a problem of
exists, and have started our search for alternative solutions.
A. We began with the understanding that institutions (e.g., taxes, subsidies, permits, rights, pricing
policies, etc.) are as important to pollution control as technologies (e.g., canal lining, new
irrigation systems, treatment plants, etc.).
B. We have sought those institutions, technologies, or combinations of institutions and technologies
that are acceptable, or least objectionable, to water users in agriculture.
C. We have screened our lists of alternatives via consultation with water lawyers, water agency
personnel, district managers, et_ al.
D. We now seek your evaluation of these alternative, pollution controlling technologies and
institutions. And if we have overlooked some, we hope you will add them to our list. Will
you look at them with us?
[Present for discussion list of alternatives in Valley —the physical dimensions,
the legal possibilities, the economic incentives, the penalties, the organizational
bottlenecks, etc.]
66
-------
The rationale for discussion was used in conjunction with the summary
of technological and institutional alternatives developed by the interdisci-
plinary team. In the case of Rio Grande and Yakima Valleys, extended tables
have been produced summarizing a wide range of alternatives appropriate to
the improvement of irrigation return flows. In Grand Valley, given the
beginning of implementing a series of technical solutions, a more elaborate
discussion of on-going efforts was undertaken. Furthermore, given the speci-
fic circumstances of each case study area, different combinations of "solu-
tions" or alternatives were presented for field assessment. Three successive
tables (Tables 2, 3 and A) articulate the basic approaches adopted in assess-
ing measures to improve return flow in three areas.
In all three cases, the rationale outlined in Table 1 was used as a
standard backdrop for the discussion of proposed "solutions." In the case
of the Middle Rio Grande Valley, particular emphasis was placed on under-
scoring probable 'effects of two major classes of alternatives: technological
and institutional. A similar approach (but in a more summary manner) was
also adopted in Grand Valley. Finally, in the case of the Yakima Valley, the
approach was further expanded in order to incorporate not only potential ben-
efits and costs, but also to summarize the extent of desirability as well as
types of constraints that may affect eventual implementation efforts. At the
same time, the categories of potential measures were discussed along four
different dimensions, namely return flow, on-farm practices, delivery, and
river flow.
CHARACTERISTIC FINDINGS (EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES)
It would be impossible to discuss here in any detail all the specific
findings of the study and the particularities of each case study. The
"packages" of solutions created and the alternative strategies elaborated
through successively sharpened phases of iteration appear in the appropriate
sections of each valley analysis and are also outlined in a general form in
Tables 2, 3 and 4. While these "packages" appear in different form, the
approach is essentially the same. In* particular, the basic categories out-
lined in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and Grand Valley analyses were com-
bined in a different manner in the case of Yakima by incorporating also con-
siderations of desirability and constraints to potential implementation.
Given the "packages" of solutions outlined, it is important to provide
some explanatory remarks on the conclusions drawn and on the insights gained
vis-a-vis return flow control measures and procedures. To start with, we
must recapitulate the basic approach for generating alternative measures and
for building the basis for implementing "solutions" in return flow. Figure
15 provides in summary form the procedure followed. With this background in
mind, three further items constitute the last part of this section: a) the
major dimensions of problems identified in the case studies; b) specific
findings and general remarks on the four valleys; and c) some general conclu-
sions concerning the assessment of potential solutions. The question of
potential implementation is raised in Section 8, where problems and prospects
of implementabi1ity are raised in the context of a general discussion of
innovation and change.
67
-------
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE TO IMPROVEMENT OF
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOWS, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
Water Qua!ity
Economic
Legal
Sociological
CT>
03
I. Increase flow of the
river, expand volume
of water.
-If increased flow is left
in river, then concentra-
tion of salts will be
reduced.
-If increase flow is diverted
then the effect on the con-
centration of salts will no
be significantly different
from the present situation.
•Higher quality of water from
flow in the river would
increase crop yields and
agricultural income.
•Make more water available
for irrigation if increased
flow is diverted.
-Increased flow cannot be left
in the river until all
existing appropriations can
be met.
-If existing appropriations
cannot be met, the state may
appropriate the increased
flow for in-stream water
quality improvement.
I.A. Supplement river
flow via pumped water.
-Most of the existing water
is pumped from the shallow
aquifers, which tends to
be of lower quality.
-Mining the water at a rate
greater than the recharge may
bring high returns in the short-
run, but would eliminate ground
water reserves that allow the
farmers to stay in business in
water-short years.
-Potential interference with
existing welIs.
- Would permit more consis-
tent diversions to junior
rights holders.
-If increase water is used
for agriculture, the rural
farm population will become
more stable.
-Greater flow of water may
enhance the urbanization
of the area.
-Depending on the amount of
increased water, attitudes
toward the use of water,
district improvements and
district authority will
change.
I.B. Induce precipitation
and runoff via cloud
seeding.
-The effects of cloud seed-
ing depend on the amount
of water" generated.
•Still an experimental technology
and it is not clear that bene-
fits exceed costs.
-Cloud seeding efforts in one
area may cause liability for
damages in another area.
-Would permit more consistent
diversions to junior rights
holders and allow for new
appropriations.
-Some interstate agreement
must be established as to
the consequences of such
a program.
-Environmental objections
may be a problem.
I.C. Eradicate phreato-
phytes above Caballo
Reservoir.
Could save 34,700 acre-feet
of water. Lower concentra-
tions below Caballo from
500 mg/1 to <(80 mg/1.
-Costs of control would have to
be borne by beneficiaries, but a
subsidy might be arranged to pro-
vide a public input into the
project (B/C ratio, USSR, l\.63-
1).
-Again, this would provide
more consistent diversions to
junior rights holders.
-Resistance by users may
occur in having to* pay the
costs.
-Environmental and aesthe-
tic objections will arise.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
Water Quality
Economi c
Legal
Sociological
I.D. Suppress evaporation
from the reservoirs.
-Some 250,000 af (35,825 ha-m
of water is now lost via
evaporation; but technology
is not yet developed.
-If 100,000 af (12,330 ha-m)
of water is saved it will
lower the concentration be-
low Caballo to 435 mg/1.
-If 200,000 af (24,660 ha-m)
is saved, it will lower
concentration below Caballo
to 350 mg/1.
-Technology is not yet developed;
costs would be prohibitive.
-For this to be a successful
solution to IRFO.C, it would
be necessary for the Rio
Grande Basin states to obtain
authority to appropriate the
increased flows in the name
of the state. Otherwise,
unappropriated waters may
be filed upon.
-Methods in suppressing
evaporation will inter-
fere with recreation
pursuits in reservoirs.
II. Impound flows of
highly saline
tributaries.
cn
CO
-Reduce sait load and con-
centrations by keeping
saline water out of river.
Lower concentration at San
harcial from 460 mg/1 to
440 mg/1.
-However,-loss of 66,000
af (8,135 ha-m) of water
per year.
-Costs of improvements to evapo-
rate these waters would be con-
siderable; costs would probably
be shared. Improvement in water
quality of 20 mg/1 is only a
small benefit to downstream users
while the cost and decrease in
total flow is high.
-Water in tributaries is a higher
quality than Hudspeth Co. now
receives.
-Reduction of volume flows
may have adverse impact upon
vested rights giving ground
for legal action if it can
be demonstrated that there
is sufficient dilution to
provide useable water
quali ties.
-The critical point will
be with loss of the water.
Farmers with junior
rights may be significantly
affected.
-This action may affect the
interstate agreement on
delivery of a specific
quantity of water.
III. Provide aquaduct
from Caballo to El
Paso and possibly
beyond.
-Provision of water at 500
mg/1 throughout the sys-
tem instead of the cur-
rent 800 mg/1 at El Paso
and 1500 mg/1 at the
County Line. Would pro-
vide water of equal
quali ty to i rrigated
lands in Hesi1 la and
El Paso Valleys.
-Adverse environmental
effect on fish and
wildlife.
-Would be a costly means of
improving the quality of water
delivered to Texas, but would
provide a supply of water equal
to that used in Mesilla Valley.
-Existing constraints on crop
production in the El Paso
Valley would be eliminated.
Crops of higher value could
be producted.
-Effect on gross income from
agriculture could be an increase
of 40% in the El Paso Valley.
Would probably cost $100 million
(rough estimate). If 40% increase
in gross agricultural income,
then benefits would be: for
25 years @ 6%. $103.54 ml 11 ion.
-Legal effect, may be
interference with vested
water rights of the
districts at increased
cost without significant
benefit to either EBID or
EPID.
-There wi 11 be a new
interorganizational rela-
tionship between the USBR
(if they buiId it) and
irrigation districts.
-Wi11 there be new
management problems?
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Technological Alternatives
Water Quali ty
Economic
Legal
Sociological
IV. Improve distribution
systems in irrigation
districts.
-Effects on water quality
would come principally from
allowing better on-farm
management. If water sup-
plied on demand, may elim-
inate pumping of some
low quality ground water.
-Would increase efficiency of water
diversion 6 distribution, save
some water for use on crops.
-These improvements may be very
costly, as evidenced by a pro-
posed $108 million project for
EBID.
-Greater achievement of
states' beneficial use
concept, only possible
adverse effect may be
reduction in amount of
water divertable under
existing rights.
-The irrigation district
will have greater control
over water.
-Critical consideration is
the persuasion of the dis-
trict member that the
program is needed.
IV.A. Line canals and put
laterals in con-
crete pipe.
-Would reduce seepage loss.
-Any practices or improve-
ments which cause surface
water to be used more
efficiently result in: 1)
decreasing percolation
which decreases the ground
water reservoir; 2) de-
creasing concentration of
salts in the river, £ in-
creasing concentration of
salts in the land.
-Would increase investment in
facilities and thus increase
capital costs of water systems,
but would lower annual
operating costs.
IV.B.
Instal1 flow
measuring
devi ces.
-Would permit accurate
deliveries of water to
farms for better on-
farm management.
-Would allow accurate measure of
water applied to crops; greater
efficiency should cause reduc-
tion in costs of production.
IV.C. Deepen regulating
reservoirs of
Hudspeth County
C&RD, construct
reservoirs on
arroyos.
-Reduce evaporation and
concentration of salts.
-Capture wild Water.
-Would reduce evaporation and
concentration of salts; make
more water available for irri-
gation, increase crop produc-
tion 6 increase gross income.
-This may have significant bene-
fits in allowing Hudspeth Co. to
capture more water for i rrigation.
-Uncertainty of water supply
may cause an aversion to
investment in storage
facilities.
V.
Modify irrigation
practices.
-At absolute best, make
water quality downstream
equal to upstream (500
mg/1 at Caballo).
-However, with a lower leach-
ing fraction, the concentra-
tion of leachate will
increase so that the load-
ing will not decrease in
proportion to the decrease
in quantity of return flow.
-Would improve on-farm
management of water.
-Positive legal effects as
water users improve water
use efficiency.
-Will require technical
and perhaps financial
assistance.
-Educational program neces-
sary for implementation.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Technological Alternatives
V.A. Implement an
i rrigation schedul-
ing program.
V.B. Make some changes
>in i rrigatl on
methods and
practices.
VI. Divert return flows
in drains to
evaporative ponds
or desal Inlzation
plants.
Water Quality
-Lower leaching fraction
would reduce loading of
river where it is
occurri ng.
-Same as III.V. above
-Also trickle irrigation
is well adapted to some
crops, e.g., pecans, and
would permit reductions
in water used.
-Would keep highly saline
water out of river and
reduce salt load.
-Problem of brine disposal.
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Economic
-Would provide for application
of water according to plant
requirements and increase crop
production.
-Changes in irrigation methods
would involve new investments
and would thus increase costs
of production.
-Construction of ponds would
require investment of public
and/or private funds; impact
on irrigated agriculture
would depend on cost-sharing
arrangement.
Legal
-Must consider rights to
divert.
Sociological
-Organizational task re-
arrangement will ensue.
-An add! tional work
relationship between the
USER and the irrigation
di'stricts wi 1 1 ensue.
-Resistance by users to
the costs that wi 1 1 be
levied may occur.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS.
Institutional Alternative^
Water Quality
Economic
Legal
Sociological
I. Implement a discharge
permit system (quotas)
-With appropriate monitor-
ing of return flows, this
would maintain the- river
quality at a prescribed
level.
-Could significantly affect agri-
cultural output by limiting the
use of water. Extent of use wi11
depend on water quality standards
set for the river.
-N.M. has not adopted the NPOES
program 6 consequently the
federal program would have
to be enforced by EPA.
-New regulations for control-
ling discharges are proposed
by the N.M. EIA that would
require a "discharge plan"
not a permit.
-Texas has adopted a NPDES
-Can a permit system be
implemented in the Rio
Grande? Resistance is
likely to be overwhelming.
Numerous suits will undoubt-
edly be filed contesting the
administration of the law.
I.A. Issue permits to the
highest local water
management authority.
•Would allow discharges
to vary as allocations
vary.
•Requires precise measurement of
each irrigator's pollution
discharge. This is financially
if not technically unfeasible.
-No legal effect, positive or
negative.
-Consideration-would have to
be given whether this permit
would be tied to the water
right.
^j I.B. Issue permits to
1*0 individuals who are
users of water.
•Would establish an upper
limit on discharges.
-Would establish a limit of dis-
charges which would be independ-
ent of water applications.
-The permits or quotas will require
improved, management of water in
irrigation methods, ditch lining,
etc.) which will be costly.
-New investments and higher
costs will be required.
-Can the individual be
motivated to comply with
such c system?.
II. Initiate charges (taxes)
for effluent, to reflect
quantity and quality of
return flows and costs
of treatment.
-Make monitoring of return
flows necessary and sub-
sequent water quality
would depend on level of
taxes and/or treatment.
-Would require water users to pay
the costs of pollution, i.e.,
the costs of treatment of de-
graded return flows.
-Refer to Statement III.
-Similar programs for Msl dis-
charges have met successfully
the legal challenges of con-
stitutional ity.
-Must be able to identify
pollution and the source to
satisfy the legal questions.
-What organizational mechanism
will be employed to implement
this program; i.e., who will
monitor the effluent & levy
the taxes?
-What will be the degree of
the resistance by farmers?
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECTS
Institutional Alternatives
Water Quality
Economic
Legal
Sociological
Develop incentives for
management/control of
irrigation return
flows.
•Depends on the level
of management and of
control.
•Would induce water users to
control distribution and use
of water.
-Would permit greatest achieve
merit of beneficial use (max-
imum utilization) while pre-
serving property interest in
water rights.
-No legal constraints.
•An organizational structure
must be initiated to commun-
icate the various programs
to the farmer.
Strategies for implementation
must be created, i.e., demon-
lira tion.
I 11.A. Provide cost-sharing
programs for capital
improvements
•Would allow better on-
farm management, reduc-
ing quantity of return
flows.
-Would encourage investment in
quality—improving plant and
facilities, such as canal and
lateral lining, new irrigation
III.B. Make incentive pay-
ments for improved
water management
practices.
•Would encourage improve-
ments in management of
land and water for pollu-
tion control.
-Would encourage adoption of
quality improving methods
and techniques, such as
Irrigation scheduling.
IV. Provide technical
assistance in land/
water management
programs.
•Improvement in water
quality would depend on
level of adoption.
-Would encourage 6 facilitate
installation of needed facili-
ties & adoption of improved
practices.
•This would be ;i public invest-
ment in improved water quality.
-No legal constraints.
Repeat Statement V.
Which organizations will be
involved?
V. Facilitate sales of
the annual allotments
or fractions thereof at
negotiated prices.
•Depends on use to which
water is put.
-Would improve efficiency of
water use, moving "surplus"
water into higher-value uses.
-Prohibited by theUSBR if on
a permanent basis and out-
side district boundaries.
•If annual transfers, no legal
restrictions aside from the
requirement that project users
cannot be adversely affected.
Should improve understanding
of significance of water to
agricultural production in
the valley.
VI. Sever the water right
from the land and allow
transfers (sales) of
rights.
•Depends on use to which
water is put.
•Would cause change in use of water
supply moving some water into non-
agricultural uses.
•While ability to buy a right, as
opposed to a one-time allotment,
is very attractive to potential
buyers, potential water sellers in
an area with highly variable sur-
face deliveries are less likely to
enter the market with rights than
with allotments.
•Under Reclamation Law,water
rights belong to the BOR until
the project is paid off, then
assigned to the district. The
water rights are for certified
lands.
-It would be necessary to have
legal agreement between the
district and the USBR to imple-
ment this alternative.
-May serve as a catalyst to
further urbanization. It
would Involve change in
water management practices
6 pblicies.
-Wouldn't be popular among
district members.
-Conflict among users may
emerge due to questions of
whether rights should be
sold and to whom
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
PROBABLE EFFECT?
Institutional Alternatives
VI. A. Limit sales to
agricultural users.
VII. Add element of water
quality to water right.
VIII. Issue regulations
for beneficial use.
Water Qua! ity
-Depends on use to which
water is put.
-Would maintain water
qual ity within
usable limits.
-Depends on how strict
the definition of ben-
eficial use is.
Economic
-Would cause continuing use of
water in agriculture 6 thus a
lower total value-in-use.
-Would increase cost of water
use, to maintain water qual-
ity and cause changes in
crops irrigated.
Legal
-Legally possible within dis-
tricts provided district
rules do not provide the
contrary.
-No state law restrictions.
-Would only apply to new water
rights and changes requested
in existing rights.
-Would provide right holder
administrative course of
action.
-Would enable state to
effectively control waste.
Sociological
-Would encourage continued
growth of larger farms at
the expense of the smaller
farms.
-Would make this alternative
more acceptable.
-Considerations that must be
taken into account:
'Monitoring quality standards
•Enforcement mechanisms.
• Capability of users to
comp 1 y .
-Conflict among users with new
rights and those with old
rights wi 1 1 ensue.
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SALINITY CONTROL
IN THE GRAND VALLEY.
I tern
Probable Effect
TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES:
1. Delivery system Improvements—
a. Lining of canals and laterals
b. Installation of flow measuring devices
2. Improved water application practices
a. Implementation of irrigation scheduling
program.
b. Introduction of trickle and sprinkle
irrigation systems.
}. Improved management of fertilizers on crops.
<(. Improved water removal subsystem, by means of
tile drains and treatment of effluent.
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reallocation of water via adjudication of
rights.
2. Imposition of volumetric controls, on the
basis of crop needs.
3. Reduction of "water duty1' by institution of
abandonment procedures against users where
there is waste.
4. Open marketing of water rights within the
river basin.
5- Sales by Grand Valley Canal Assn. or the
Conservancy District of "surplus" water, i.e.,
that water which is not consumptively used).
6. Return flow discharge permits (quotas).
o. Issued on the basis of the water rights
held.
b. Sold in an open market, with number of
permits reflecting the allowable discharge
of effluents.
7. Effluent charges, based on costs of treat-
ment of return flows.
8. Subsidization of useful programs and
practices.
a. Cost-sharing programs aimed at capital
Improvement.
b. Incentive payments for improved practices.
c. Tax "breaks" for capital investments.
9. Payments, I.e., rewards, for reduction of
return flows or of aa It/si It loads.
10. Technical assistance in salinity control
programs.
a. Educational efforts, e.g., extension
programs.
b. Technical assistance, e.g., Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
12. Management of water in a project area by a
voluntary, nonprofit organization.
Prevention of seepage and operational spills.
Reduction of subsurface flows. Control of applications,
Improvement of irrigation efficiencies.
Reduction of deep percolation losses
Increase efficiency of water use via "timed" applica-
tion of water.
Gain control of rates of application of water on
some crops.
Reduce costs of fertilizer and reduce concentrations of
fertilizer in return flows.
Remove water moving below root zones, to prevent deep
percolation, and treat this water before discharge to
receiving streams.
Reduction of "water duty" from as high as nine acre-feet
per acre to five acre-feet per acre (or whatever amount
is necessary for Irrigation in the valley).
Promotion of efficiency in use of water with no change
in "water duty" (the right to a specific quantity of
water).
Promotion of efficiency in use of water because of
change in the water right.
Redistribution of rights and real location of water based
on values of water in various uses (constrained only by
limits on diversion which protect rights of other users).
Reallocation of water from owners of "surplus" to others
who need water (constrained by capability of districts
to deliver "surplus" to buyers).
Control of effluent discharged.
Establishes limits for discharge of pollutants by
present owners and users of water.
Requires water users to pay costs of pollution. Permits
tied to water use. Requires designation of stream
standards. Likely to result in improved use of water,
shifts in use to higher value uses, some transfers of
rights.
Requires water users to pay costs of pollution. Makes
sampling and testing of return flows necessary. Re-
quires designation of stream standards. Likely to cause
more efficient use of water. May cause shift in use of
water to higher value uses.
Encouraged adoption of technology and improvement in
management of land/water resources.
Provides incentive for investment in distribution
and irrigation systems.
Encouraged improvement in management of land and
water pollution control.
Encourages adoption of measures appropriate to
pollution control.
Encourages improved management of land and water.
Improves understanding of pollution problems, identi-
fies alternative solutions, encourages individual
actions to alleviate problems.
Facilitates adoption of improved practices, assists with
improvements in distribution and irrigation systems.
Improved allocation and use of water by a management
entity. . .
75
-------
TABLE A. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY, YAKIMA VALLEY.
MEASURES
1. RETURN FLOW
A. Discharge
Permit System
B. Effluent Tax
C. District or
Area Treatment
D. Subsidies on
On-Farm
Treatment
BENEFITS
Water Quality
Improvement
Sediment
1 Phosphate
Nitrate
Variable wi th
quota levels
permitted.
Variable with
tax level.
100% 90* 90*
90% 60% 40*
Other
Possible Incentive to more
efficient farming.
Reduction of downstream
costs of water use.
Increased recreational
value.
Some improvement to
fisheries.
Greater control over
small part-time farmers.
Revenues for additional
adjustments.
Incentives to more
efficient farming.
deduction of downstream
costs of water use.
Increased recrea. value.
Some improvement to fish.
Burden of pollution
control on those who
benefit from water use.
Large reduction of down-
stream water use costs.
Increased recrea. value.
Some improvement to fish.
Possibility of greater
unity and coordination
among districts.
Reduce farmer's
financial burden of
adjustment.
Large reduction of
downstream water
use costs.
Increased recrea. value.
Some improvement to fish.
Incentive to more
efficient farming.
Greater integration of
farmer into water
qual i ty arena.
COSTS
Monetary
Very high monitoring
and enforcement
costs.
Very high monitoring
and enforcement
costs.
$1.3-510.2 million-
capital costs +
$75, 000- $1,740, 000-
operation and
maintenance cost
per year.
$24o,000-capital
costs +
$75,000 OSM per
year.
Other
Loss of farmer's
control of
operations.
Increased strain
within irriga-
tion districts
and between
users and
officials.
Increased
litigation.
Tax may act as a
disincentive
to farming.
Creation of strair
between users
and taxing
officials.
Increased organ-
izational
growth.
Complicates
farmer's
operations.
Outside inter-
ference in
farm
operations.
DESIRABILITY
Farmers and state
officials
unenthusiastic.
Federal support
for program.
No clear support
for this
action.
General reluctance
to paying the
high costs of
this measure.
'armers may
support this
measure.
CONSTRAINTS
Resistance to arbitrary
outside restrictions.
Enforcement difficult
due to local resist-
ance and lack of
evidence.
Resistance to taxation.
Difficult to equitably
determine who should
be taxed and how much.
Farmer resistance to
financing; or
Public resistance to
financing.
Difficulty in financing
-Public resistance.
Not effective for
farmers who cannot
or wi 1 1 not obtain
subsidies .
01
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
MEASURES
1 1 . ON- FARM
PRACTICES
A. Improved
Tai Iwater
Management
B. Tai Iwater
Ponds with
Reel rculation
B. Improved
Appl i cat! on
Methods
1) Contour
Furrows
2) Sprinkler
1 rrigation
3) Trickle
1 rrigation
C. Improved Land
and Water
Management
1) Precise
Water
Measurement
2) Irrigation
Schedul ing
BENEFITS
water liua 1 1 ty
1 mp rovemen t
Sed ] Phos | HI t
90% 90% 10%
100% 100% 1*0%
70% 70% 10%
100% 100% 70%
100% 100% 90%
Varies with
resulting
decrease
in water
appl i cat ion.
30% 30% 50%
Other
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
water use costs.
Some improvement to fish.
Prevention of soil loss.
Lower water & fertilizer
needs .
Reduction of downstream
water use costs.
Large improvement to
recrea. and fish, (less
diversion from river).
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Frost protection.
Lower water needs.
Lower labor needs
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement in recrea.
and fisheries.
Increased productivity.
Lower water needs.
Lower labor needs.
Better data for resource
planning.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs .
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Increased production.
Lower water and
fertilizer needs.
COSTS
Monetary
$20/acre-capital
costs; +
$6 acre-OEM per
year.
$250/acre-capital
costs; +
$12/acre-OSM per
year.
Labor costs
increase
$225-$1,500/acre-
capital costs +
$56-51 21 /acre OSM.
$1,000-$l,300/acre.
Measuring devices
and labor costs.
Computer costs,
technical
assistance cost,
increased on-
farm labor
costs.
Other
Compl icated
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
fa rme r ' s
operations.
Possible damage
to downstream
water rights
due to reduced
return flow.
Compl icates
fa rme r ' s
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Less flexibility
for farmer.
DESIRABILITY
This is practices
in Wapato
Project
currently.
More farmers are
instal 1 ing sprink-
lers for many of
the benefits in
"other" column
each year.
Some farmers, are
currently using
these practices
to a degree. This
suggests at least
acceptab! 1 i ty and
desi rabi 1 ity.
Some farmers are
currently using
these practices
to a degree. This
suggests at least
acceptabl 1 t~ty and
desi rabi lity.
CONSTRAINTS
Low cost, abundant
water supplies inhibit
reuse practices.
Courts may rule against
such measures due to
injury to downstream
users.
Resistance to a more
time consuming pra
practice.
High capital costs.
Past bad experience
with trickle
systems .
High capital costs.
Farmers will resist any
decrease in their
water del iveries.
Resistance to change to
more complex, time
consuming practices.
(continued)
-------
TABLE It (continued)
MEASURES
3) Improved
Fertil izer
Practices
k} Improved
Cropping
Patterns
5) Improved
Cul ti vat ion
Practices
D. Specification
of Beneficial
Use
1) Quantity
by Crop
Type, etc.
2) To incor-
porate
water
quality.
E. Subsidize
Irrigators
1) Technical,
Educational
Aid.
2) Cost-sharing
Capital-
Improvements
3) Incentive
Paymen ts
BENEFITS
Water 0_ual ity
1 mp rovemen t
Sed |Phos ] Hit
0% 50% 70*
Variable
Variable
Variable
with levels
specified.
Could attain
any des i red
level of
water
qua) ity.
WI 1 1 corres-
pond with
improvement
to be
subsidized.
Wi 1 1 corres-
pond with
improvement
to be
s ubs i d i zed .
Wi 1 1 corres-
pond with
improvement
to be
subsidized.
Other
Lower fertilizer needs.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction in downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Reduce waste.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Greater water quality
control .
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
cos ts .
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
COSTS
Monetary
Educational program
costs.
Increased applicatio
cos ts .
Educational program
costs.
Equipment and labor
costs increase.
Educational program
cos ts .
Increased manpower
in state agencies
for specification
and moni tor ing
Increased manpower
in state agencies
for specification
and moni tor ing.
Higher manpower
cos ts .
Higher manpower
costs.
Cost of subsidies.
Higher manpower
costs.
Cost of subsidies.
Other
Farmer uncer-
tainty with
new practices.
Farmer uncer-
tainty wi th
new practices.
Farmer uncer-
tainty with
new practices.
DESIRABILITY
Some farmers are
now using these
practices to a de-
CONSTRAINTS
Resistance to change to
more complex, time-
consuming practices.
gree. This suggests
at least acceptabi -
ity £ desirabi 1 i ty .
Some farmers are
now using these
practices to a de-
Resistance to change to
more complex, time-
consuming practices.
gree. This suggests
at least acceptabi -
ity & desirabi 1 ity.
Some farmers are
now using these
practices to a de-
Resistance to change to
more complex, time-
consuming practices.
gree. This suggests
at least acceptabil-
ity & desirability.
Potential farmer
resistance
Agencies which
could handle the
subsidies already
exist 6 are gener-
ally successful in
Yakima area.
Agencies which
could handle the
subsidies already
exist & are gener-
al ly successful in
Yakima area.
Agencies which
could handle the
subsidies already
exist 6 are gener-
al ly successful in
Yakima area.
Farmers wi 1 1 resist
any decrease in their
water del ivories.
Limited funding.
Limited funding.
OO
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
MEASURES
III. DELIVERY
A. Read judi cat ion
l) To el imi-
nate
Uncertainty
2) To Incor-
porate
Beneficial
Use.
3) To allow
Districts to
Use Return
Flow
B. System
Rehabilitation
C. Tax on Water
(at $20/a.f.)
D. Water Rental
Market
E. Demand
Del i very
System
IV. RIVER FLOW
A. Stabilize
River Flow
1) Additional
Storage
2) Ground
BENEFITS
Water Qual i ty
Improvement
Sed | Phos |ll it
Wl 1 1 corres-
pond w/decrease
in water app-
lication rate.
Variable w/lev-
els specified.
Could attain
any desired
level of water
qua! i ty.
Wi 1 1 corres-
pond w/decreas
in water appl i
cation rate.
Will provide
more water
which could
be left in
stream.
Variable w/tax
level.
88% 88% 35%
75% 75% 0%
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Other
Increased certainty of
water rights.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Incentive for more
e efficient water
- use.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Better control , less
waste.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
The polluter pays damages.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Increased ag. income-
$70,000,000.
Increased flexibility.
Most efficient water use.
Reduce waste.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
Reservoir recreation.
High benefit to f i sh-
eries.
Encourages multiple
use of river.
High benef i t to fish-
eries. Encourage
multiple use of river.
Reservoir recreation.
COSTS
Monetary
Read judi cation
would take hund-
reds of man years
6 cost mi 1 1 ions of
dol lars to complete
Very expensive to
instal 1 new
del ivery
systems.
Reduces agricul-
tural income.
$28,000,000.
Cost of adjudica-
tion if needed.
Labor costs
i ncrease.
High cost of dam
construction.
$5,000-$10,000/well ,
Other
Inducement of
conf 1 ict.
Disincentive to
farming.
Less flexibility
Possible recrea-
tion and
wi Iderness
loss.
Possible loss of
wildlife habi-
tat due to lower-
inowater foible
DESIRABILITY
The feeling in
state agencies &
among water user*
is against adjud-
ication proceeding
Broad recognition
of need.
Taxation would
find little
support.
No clear support.
Unclear.
Strong local
support.
Weak local
support .
CONSTRAIMTS
Fear of reduction in
water rights,
especial ly with
Indian claims.
s.
Funding source.
Resistance to
taxation.
Uncertain of meaning
and effects.
Need for
readjudication.
Farmers may resist the
decreased flexibility.
Farmers may resist
add! tional
indebtedness.
-------
Potential Elements Towards
A "Balanced" Solution
Packages of Solutions
Towards A Process Of
Imp1emen tat i on
Technically sound (T)
Economically viable (E)
Legally appropriate (L)
00
o
Socially acceptable (S)
Politically feasible (P)
Identify Problem (description)
Type of Solution (generation
of alternatives)
Appropriate Solution (assessment)
screen
ening^ (evaluation)
J
Acceptable solution
i—Steps for implementabi1ity-
->- Monitor ing
Figure 15. Developing and building the basis for implementing alternative
measures for irriqation return flow Quality control.
-------
Major Dimensions of Case Studies
Throughout this project, major attention was concentrated on the identi-
fication and specification of the context within which problems of irrigation
return flow quality control appear. To guide the effort, an overall approach
was early developed, summarizing major dimensions of each valley (socio-
demographic, economic, legal, and ecological); initial lists of potential
alternatives (per delivery, use, removal and other categories); and, critical
points, issues or concerns characterizing each area (Table 5).
The three central areas of analysis (Yakima, Middle Rio Grande and the
Grand Valleys) are all rural in nature with rapid urbanization occurring in
the El Paso-|_as Cruces region and moderate urbanization developing around
Grand Junction. Family farms predominate in each of these areas with a size-
able number of part-time farmers and part owners — those individuals who oper-
ate land they own and also land that they rent from others. Concerning
irrigation, the systems in all three valleys are affected by agencies at all
levels of government—federal, state and local. Compacts govern both the
Colorado River and the Rio Grande River. The Rio Grande also is subject to
international agreement.
The critical dimensions which appeared from early field investigation
involved basically two types of conditions: structural conditions and indi-
vidual user conditions. The structural conditions can be divided into the
institutional patterns surrounding the problem area and into the communica-
tion networks permeating these patterns. The basic institutional patterns
evolve around the urbanization phenomenon, the presence of an Indian Reserv-
ation in Yakima, the interdependence among the organizations involved with
water management, and the degree of organization and resource input into
water quality. Communication networks mirror this degree of interdependence.
They are involved with communication between government agencies, between
farmers, between agencies and farmers, and between the source of water
quality programs/knowledge and the receiver.
As contrasted to general socio-structural characteristics in each area
of concern, individual user conditions focus on two different but interre-
lated dimensions: perceptions and beliefs. The focus of individual percep-
tions centers on the question of what is the problem, if there is one; who is
to blame; what are the alternative solutions; and what are the consequences
of those solutions. Needless to say, there is a difference between various
officials and nonofficials as to the extent of a holistic appreciation for
this problem. From these perceptions, the various beliefs that emerge focus
on how the problem should be attacked and to what extent it should be further
examined and eventual1y changed.
General Remarks and Specific Findings for the Case Studies
Once again, it would be a repetitious task to recapitulate the findings
incorporated in each of the volumes of the three detailed case studies. In
order to provide an overview of the specific dimensions of the problem of
return flow and of the conclusions drawn in each case, we have extracted some
pertinent descriptive remarks and central findings. At the same time, we
81
-------
TABLE 5. INITIAL APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING ISSUES IN IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL.
Major
Dimens ions
SOCIO-
DEMOGRAPHIC
[Population
Institutions
Cultural]
ECONOM 1 C
LEGAL
REGIMES
ECOLOGICAL
[Env.
ambient con.
Predom. type
of pol . ]
Proposed
Al ternati ves
Technical
>-
a:
Ul
»
_i
u
q
Non-
Technical
YAK IMA
-Siow to moderate
-Rural in nature with
three urban centers
-Significant proportion
of smaller family farms
using irrigation (few
corporate farms)
-Organizations involved:
BOR, Dept. of Eco., dis-
tricts, SCS.
-Value of water used inagr
-Nonmarket allocation of w
-Price of water tends to b
-Costs of water quality im
-Benefits of water qual-
ity improvement accrue
largely to agriculture.
-Potential competition
for water for develop-
ing agr. land.
-May not be enough
demand to create a
water market.
-State water law inte-
grates water quantity
6 qua! i ty.
-Strong projection for
agric. water rights.
-Weak recognition of pol-
lution from agric. water
rights with BOR and
irrig. district distrib.
-No interstate or
national agreement.
-Sediment
-Phosphate
-Nitrate
-System Rehabilitation
Canals-Laterals.
-Reuse of return flows
(where appl i cable}
-Conjunctive use of
ground water.
-Additional Storage
capaci ty.
Economic
-Real location of
agric. water.
-Tax on water delivered to
Legal
-State criteria for delive
-Identify "duty" cum "liab
-Provide incentive in law
I
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE
-Fast growth rate.
Urbanization trend:
El Paso-Las Cruces.
-Sig. proportion of
smaller fam. farms
using irr. Corp.
farms are present.
-Organs, involved:
BOR, districts, state
organ., RIGREP.
[culture relatively low
SAN JOAQUIN
-Mod. growth rate.
-Urbanization-mod, to
fast.
-Largest no. of water
users in smaller farm
units (10-99 acres).
-Largest amt. of irr.
acreage in larger farms
(500 acres >).
GRAND
-Mod. growth rate (one
urban area) .
-Largest no. of farm
units using irr. in
small family farms.
-Acr. split between
sma 1 1 /med ./large
farm units.
srovernent tend to be hie
-Benefits of water
quality improvement
accrue to agric. and
nonagric. uses.
-Emerging competition
between urban and
agric. uses.
-Two state laws with
different surface/
ground water laws.
-Dif. state agencies
for quant. £ qual .
-Designated ground
water basins: N.M.
as solution.
-Compact.
-Treaty.
-Sal ini ty
-Water source: water
import; weather mod.;
phreatophyte erad.;
use of high qual .
ground water; res.
evap. supres.; prev.
of natural salt inflon
-Delivery: water sup-
ply aqueduct system
rehabi 1 i tation.
ry base to be imposed up
1 i ty" for efficiency du
sy allocating "capture"
J11
-Benefits tend to
accrue to agric.
users and nonagric.
users .
-Considerable subsidy
of water supply for
agric.
-One state system.
- Integrated.
-Dual water laws.
-Multitude of organs.
-Vested rights.
-Common law:
pollution control.
-Strong "reasonable"/
beneficial use mandate
-Salinity
-Nitrates
.
-Benefits accrue to
agric. users.
-Political consider-
ations important to
efforts to improve
qual i ty of return
flow.
-One state system:
conjunctive use.
-Separate quant/qua t.
-Irrigation companies:
pri vate/publ ic.
-Compact.
-Treaty.
-Common law pollution.
-Disincentives for dev./
salvaged waters.
-Salinity
-Lateral lining.
-Flow measurement.
-Canal 1 ining.
Economic
-Real location of
agric. water.
-Organize water users
on each lateral .
e to excess seepage/carriage losses -*-'
ujc o JDVC water-
(continued)
82
-------
TABLE 5. (Continued)
Technical
LlJ
I/)
=>
Non-
Technical
Techn i ca 1
I
s
£
<
>
o
£ Non-
Techn i ca 1
Technical
a:
LU
T:
o Non-
Technical
CRITICAL
POINTS/
ISSUES
[Overriding
concerns :
Preoccupa.
Character.
problem]
-Contour furrows.
-Tai Iwater drain
i mprovemen ts .
-Tai Iwater ponds.
-Tal Iwater pond with
reci rculation.
-Sprinkler irrigation.
-Trickle irrigation.
-Irrigation scheduling.
-Improving present
irrigation methods.
-Fertilizer practices.
-Water measurement.
-Crops and cropping
. eaUerns..
Economic
-Subsidized improvement in
-Water market/or exchange
-Regulation of use in agri
Legal
-Enforce beneficial use — —
-Encourage trading/selling
-Place burden upon users t
-Impose duty of efficiency
-Focus — prevent ion measure
-Ti le drainage.
-Grassed return flow
ditches.
-Treatment ponds
(Sulphur Creek) .
-Advanced treatment
(Sulphur Creek) .
-Desal inat ion.
Economic
-General assessment for wa
Legal
-Establish criteria and mo
-Improving existing
i rrigation methods.
-Sprinkler irrigation.
-Trickle irrigation.
-Irrigation scheduling.
-Improve on-farm
water management.
-Tune-up existing
irrigation methods.
-Irrigation scheduling.
or reduced diversion by
o demonstrate need for d
upon public entities, i
-Ti le drainage.
-Desal inat ion.
-Evaporation.
removing constraints in
i-
. =. , public trust for use of public resource-B-
laster drain.
-Treatment.
-Desal ination.
-Evaporation.
-Use: Indus, coolant;
marsh mangt. ; salt
tolerant crops; grow-
ing algae; sea water
repul sion; oil field
repressurization.
-Tile drainage.
-Desal ination.
Economic
-Retirement of land from i
Legal
By arena: Legislative, ad
-Legislative: -new or ame
•prescribe
-Administrative Organizati
p rob 1 ems ; •
ship; 'acce
inventory r
-Judiciary: -resolve di
efficiency;
•curative s
Legal
-Closed system.
-Excellent legal
framework.
-Publ ic entities
with publ ic trust.
Social
-Conflict between DOE 6
districts w/regard to
authority over water mgmt.
-Perception: abundance
of water.
-Questions as to Indian
water rights and consq.
for local economy.
ministrati ve, judicial.
nded laws; 'create and
incentives/benefits vis-
ons: 'develop specific
stimulate incent i ves/vol
pt public trust; -enhanc
^sources, become water b
aputes; 'apply "standard
•balance public interes
Legal ~l
-Complex legal/pol i t ica
scene- State/Fed. /Inter
state/International .
Social
-Perception: lack of
water.
-Apprehension of ground
water deplet. due to
dif. legal systems.
-Urban demands in El
Paso and Juarez.
condition rights and duties for resource use;
rules and regulations to particular issues S
untary participation by users; -image relation-
e control over resources (cease water deliveries,
s of community" modified by law to water use
t with private rights; -injunctions/damages;
Legal
1-Overlapping
- jurisdictions.
-Complex legal system.
-Conflicting users w/
vested rights.
Social
-Widespread apprehens.
as to future long-term
agric. productivity
due to sal ini ty .
-Water quality degrad.
to Bay Area, esp. w/
regard to aquatic
and wi Id 1 i fe.
Legal
-Private/public irrig.
companies.
Social
-Detrim. to Los Angeles
& San Diego and Imperial
& Mexicale Val leys.
-Energy dev. , partic. for
new water demands on
Colorado River.
-Further use S degrada-
tion of water.
83
-------
have included in each case the executive summary prepared as a mnemonic
device for the research during the initial field investigations.
1. Yakima Valley (Table 6)--
The Yakima Valley is predominantly rural in nature. As a whole, the
area is distinguished by a slow-to-moderate growth rate. In the rural areas,
the individual family farm is the predominant form of organization with a
majority of farm sizes less than 100 acres. There are a large number of part
part-time farmers throughout the Valley with the vast percentage of acreage
being farmed by part owners, i.e., those people who operate land they own and
also land that they rent from others. With regard to irrigation, there are
a number of critical organizations involved: the Bureau of Reclamation,
which represents the federal level; the Washington State Department of
Ecology, the agency created to develop and implement a program to facilitate
the decision-making process regarding water resources management; and the
local irrigation districts, of which there are 25 in number with six of them
being major entities.
The broad social conditions that emerged from field work concerning
the parameters that would delimit certain return flow solutions can be
divided into two general categories: structural conditions and individual
conditions. Structural conditions involve: a) the institutional parameters
surrounding the problem area; and b) the communication network present in
this institutional context. Critical institutional parameters begin with the
fact that there is an Indian reservation in the area which has special rights
to the water. Among the organizational entities, there is a lack of willing-
ness to get involved directly with water quality enforcement on the farm
level. Each organization sees its own limitations and thinks that others
have the authority and should use it. There is concern by some that the
introduction of any solution will initially have to be dealt with. The SCS
has already started an on-farm pilot project to deal with water quality
improvement.
Regarding communication networks, they are poor at best between the
farmer and the irrigation districts. Many farmers do not even know who their
board members are. Communication between the irrigation districts has been a
relatively new phenomenon. Finally, there is concern by some officials that
while information on water quality management is readily available, the
farmers' ability to apply that information to their farm is questionable in
many cases. Thus, the question: how valuable is a demonstration project;
and, even if it would be valuable, how should it be handled?
Individual conditions can be divided into two broad areas of concern,
that of beliefs and that of perceptions. For a potential overall program,
there have been some definite perceptual constraints. Many people in the
area believe that the significant polluters comprise only 5 percent of the
population. They perceive that the NPDES program is punishing the good
farmer. Farmers see that specific methods of irrigation are not cure-alls,
namely, that trickle and sprinkle irrigation systems also have problems.
Finally, there is no holistic perception by the farmers of the water manage-
ment problem. They are concerned about their own property. There are a
8k
-------
TABLE 6. YAK!HA VALLEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
THE STUD! AREA
- The Yakima River heads in the Cascades and flows 180 miles in a generally southeasterly direction to its
confluence with the Columbia River.
- The total area of irrigated land is 505, 000 acres.
- Servicing the irrigable land are six storage dams, five diversion dams, too hydroelectric plants, six
major governmental irrigation projects, plus numerous small private irrigation systems.
- 80 percent of the land is irrigated by furrow or flood irrigation methods.
- The Valley is the largest producer of agricultural commodities in the state of Washington, -yielding
more than $180 million per year.
- Irrigation is governed under the appropriation doctrine.
- The Valley is still predominately rural, experiencing only slow to moderate growth.
- There are three distinct urban areas situated at the head of the Valley (Ellensburg), in the center
(Hakima), and at the mouth of the river (Treaties area).
- The Wapato Indian Reservation uses the water from the Yakima River under special water rights.
- The farm population constitutes mostly family-sized farm units with only a feu corporate farms.
- There are a large number of part-time farmers and nonfarm users of irrigation water.
THE PROBLEM
- Sources of pollution closely related to agriculture with the major factor being irrigation return flow.
- Moat significant problems: high stream temperatures, heavy algal growth, and bacterial contamination.
- Causes of river degradation:
a. Excess surface return flows which place sediment and phosphates into the river;
b. Excess deep percolation which transports nitrates and other salts to the lakima River.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
- Solutions involving the delivery subsystem:
• System rehabilitation: canal lining, additional check structures, automated controls.
• Taxing the amount of pollution that a user contributes.
• Regulations on the amount of pollution that a user can create.
• Tax on the excess water and on the fertilizer a farmer uses.
- Solutions involving the user subsystem:
• Different irrigation methods, i.e., sprinkler,trickle.
• Irrigation scheduling.
• Recirculation of irrigation tailwater.
• Subsidies to farmers in the form of financial means and/or technical assistance.
• Change in market structure for allocating water.
- Solutions involving the treatment subsystems:
• Treatment ponds for precipitating sediments.
• Advanced treatment methods to remove phosphorus, nitrogen, bacteria., and salts.
85
-------
couple of beliefs that delimit any solution. There is agreement that the
problem of water quality should be attacked at the source. Also, that there
must be an increase in storage facilities. Almost all feel strongly about
keeping the water in the state and in maintaining intact their water rights.
i t
The major economic condition contributing to the irrigation return flow
pollution problem in the Yakima Valley Is the absence of a market system for
allocating water resources. As a result, water is underpriced with respect
to other production resources and relatively inflexible in its use. These
conditions cause water to be inefficiently utilized by farmers, thus con-
tributing to water pollution from return flows. The present allocation sys-
tem appropriates water on the basis of priority dates rather than highest
valued use. That is, the current institutional arrangement is not flexible
with respect to the efficient use of the water resource. Also, the present
system prices water according to its average cost of conveyance to the farm.
This typically results in water being relatively cheap in comparison with
capital and labor inputs so that water is substituted for them, causing a
disparity between economic and physical efficiency of use. Inefficient water
use is perhaps the most important cause of return flow pollution in the
Yakima Valley.
The possible economic solutions to the return flow pollution problem
(outlined in Table 4) are directed towards either creating a market or
approximating a market solution. That is, either change the present institu-
tional arrangement to allocate water through a market mechanism, or externally
alter the price of water such that it is more efficiently utilized. By pro-
viding for a market allocation of water, an opportunity cost would be associ-
ated with the use of irrigation water such that profit maximizing farmers
would be induced to use water more efficiently and sell the surplus to others,
thus reducing return flow pollution. While such a solution will not necessar-
ily internalize all water use costs, it would tend to reduce return flow
pollution without objectionable governmental intrusion into private manage-
ment activities. That is, a market system would price water at the value of
its use and allocate it to uses with the highest value. Rather than correct-
ing the entire pollution problem with extra-market adjustments, the market
solution would allow the market mechanism to automatically reduce pollution
through a more efficient allocation and pricing of water. Any unacceptable
residual pollution could then be dealt with by extra-market solutions.
Alternatively, the market solution can be approximated through various taxing
and/or subsidy schemes. By taxing water, its price can be increased to
approximate its actual value of use. This would induce farmers to substitute
more efficient management for water and, thus, reduce return flow pollution.
On the other hand, farmers could be bribed to adopt more efficient water man-
agement practices.
The major constraint surrounding the implementation of a water market
is the uncertainty of water rights, the ability to maintain those rights when
water is actually transferred, and certain hydrologic uncertainties. In
essence, an adjudication of water rights in the Valley would be a necessary
condition for creating a market and water right holders would need to be
guaranteed their right even if they rent a portion of their allocation.
86
-------
Also, physical interdependencies between water uses require specification in
order to avoid injury to junior right holders.
In the case of Yakima Valley, a water market could reduce irrigation
return flow pollution by at least 31 percent while generating $^.5 million
of payments to water right holders and increasing total farm production by
$13 million. Current state water quality standards would be met or exceeded
in all but a small stretch of the river. Farmer reaction to this solution
is generally one of indifference, reflecting in large part a lack of under-
standing as to what this solution entails, as well as assumed resistance to
economic solutions requiring monetary readjustments. A taxation scheme could
reduce water pollution by as much as or more than the market solution. It
would also induce more efficient water use, so that crop incomes would also
be expected :to rise. Generated revenues could be used to further improve the
river's water quality. Resistance among farmers, however, is strong for
obvious reasons.
Subsidization of measures to reduce return flow pollution is generally
expensive. A subsidized program in the Grand Valley, Colorado, which has a
similar problem though in a smaller scale, is estimated to be more than
$100 million. Moreover, results so far are rather questionable. The main
farmer resistance to such schemes involves either real or imagined interven-
tion of government into individual farmer activities as a condition of such
subsidies.
As stated in the previous general discussion, the control of water qual-
ity raises two basic issues, namely, incentives and enforcement. At the same
time, irrigation return flow is seen as a nonpoint source of pollution whose
control has been ineffective due to the complexity surrounding this situation.
The inappropriate irrigation practices and methods; lack of appreciating the
nature of the problem; lack of communication; inefficient water use; no
internalization of pollution costs; constraints on water transfers; failure
to enforce beneficial use provisions of law; and, a host of related conditions
contribute to problems of return flow.
The assessment process described earlier included the generation of a
wide range of potential solutions; the evaluation of such solutions by the
research team, water administrators and water users; and, the identification
of technically, economically, legally, and socially feasible solutions. At
the end of such an assessment process, the research team has arrived at a
series of both specific as well as overall conclusions regarding irrigation
return flow quality control in the Yakima Valley. The series of specific
findings (concerning potential causes and solutions to the problem) can be
found in Section 2 of the Yakima case study. Here, in terms of more general
findings and of integralive commentary, the following remarks underline the
conclusions of the study:
1. Under the existing situation in the Yakima Valley, water users have
no particular incentive for change (especially for a voluntary assump-
tion of water quality management) unless an explicit legal and/or
economic incentive or disincentive mix can be established.
87
-------
2. In this regard, the circumstances in the Valley point out that there
are actually incentives for maintaining the same practices that contrib-
ute to pollution in the sense that the system works in such a fashion
that it does not provide motivation for change. In many respects, the
system imposes penalties for those who wish or are attempting change.
3. There seems to be an inability by many in the Valley to view the
problem in a holistic fashion, as particularly pertinent, or as urgent,
and questions are raised as to the credibility of immediate attention
and solutions to a not well-defined or accepted problem.
k. The presence of a pilot project in the area (Sulphur Creek) is
unique in that it has increased awareness as to the problem, solutions
and nature of irrigation return flow quality control. At the same time,
the implementation approach recommended in this demonstration project
has created questions and ambivalent feelings as to the pros and cons
of the solutions advocated, particularly as to corrective measures vis-
a-vis irrigation return flow. Overall, recent discussions and concern
with return flow increased awareness as to the need to do something;
if nothing else, this concern has brought about increased interagency
cooperation.
5. In the case of Yakima, the state also has taken an active role, pro-
viding better coordination and involvement. This is derived from the
positive attitude of the Department of Ecology (DOE) as well as from
the fact that there seems to be a public recognition by all appropriate
authorities of the problem which ultimately enhances the potential
tractability and solution of return flow problems.
*
6. Finally, the findings of this particular study and the analysis of
material concerning the Yakima Valley confirm the general hypothesis of
the study that there does exist a variety of appropriate technologies
and technological measures. The key problem remains that of the imple-
mentability of solutions, particularly through the acceptance of a com-
bination of institutional mechanisms in the context of appropriate
technological solutions.
II. Middle Rio Grande Valley (Table 7)~
The area of problematic concern is that portion of the Middle Rio Grande
Valley lying between the Elephant Butte Reservoir and Fort Quitman, Texas.
For practical purposes, it is a closed basin, for there is no flow in the
river below Fort Quitman. This characteristic makes the quality of return
flows from irrigation very significant. Releases from Elephant Butte Reser-
voir are the source of water for the area. Releases plus return flows ctar.-
stitute the available water supply—for irrigation and other uses of water.
As water flows in the Rio Grande from Elephant Butte Reservoir to Fort
Quitman, Texas, its quality is increasingly reduced because of return flows
from irrigated lands and surface flows from unprotected upland areas. Salt
concentrations are increased because some soluble minerals are leached from
the soil in the process of irrigation and because the volume of water
-------
TABLE 7- HIDDLE RIO GRANDE VALLEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
THE STVDy AREA
- The Rio Grande River flows from the eastern slope of the San Juan Mountains in Colorado south through
New Mexico and then forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico.
- The study area of the Rio Grande Basin stretches 210 miles from Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico
to fort Quitman, Texas, containing about 8,000 square miles,
- Elephant Butte Reservoir, with a 2.2 million acre-foot capacity, stores and regulates the flow of the
river into the study area,
- The basin is divided by natural barriers into three distinct valleys: Rincon, Mesilla and El Paso.
- The total water right area is 159,650 acres within the Rio Grande Project, and an additional 18,000
acres in Hudspeth County, Texas. Nearly all irrigation is by surface methods.
- A wide range of crops are grown, including cotton, alfalfa, peppers, pecans, onions, and lettuce.
- The average value per irrigated acre is $428.50.
THE PROBLEM
- The water released from Elephant Butte Reservoir is often entirely consumed in the study area, leaving
the river bed dry below Fort Quitman.
- As flow rates decline with increasing distance from Elephant Butte, the concentration of salts increases.
Average concentration of total dissolved solids in the river:
500 mg/l — below Caballo Dam
800 mg/l — at El Paso
1,850 mg/l — at Fort Quitman
This is evidence of the concentrating effect of irrigated agriculture.
- Total salt load in the river generally decreases with increasing distance from Elephant Butte. The
irrigated land is accumulating salt.
- Due to water shortages, much ground water is being pumped to augment surface supplies. This water is
typically very saline, ranging from 1100 mg/l TDS to as much as 5000 mg/l TDS.
ALTERHATIVS SOLUTIONS
- Water supply subsystem:
• Water augmentation schemes.
• Phreatophyte eradication.
- Delivery subsystem:
• Canal lining,
• System rehabilitation,
- Veer subsystem:
• Water metering.
• Irrigation scheduling.
• Capital-intensive irrigation system: trickle or sprinkler with precision control.
- Return flow subsystem:
• Desaliniaation.
• Modification of irrigation practices to reduce return flows.
89
-------
returning to the river, after irrigation of crops, is necessarily smaller
than that which was diverted. When water is used for irrigation, there is an
unavoidable concentration of salts in return flows. For the most part, the
Valley from Elephant Butte Dam to Fort Quitman, Texas, is rural in nature,
but around the El Paso-Las Cruces area urbanization is a rapidly growing
phenomenon. In these areas, there is a high percentage of rural nonfarm
residents and a high number of part-time farmers. Part-owners from the
greatest amount of acreage while the most predominant farm organization is
the individual and family type of farm.
Regarding irrigation, there are a plethora of organizational entities
interested in water management. At the federal level, the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, the Soil Conservation Service, and the International Boundary and Water
Commission are critical components. State agencies dealing with water
quantity and water quality originate from both Texas and New Mexico and, in
addition,there is a regional group organized to study the area in its own
right. There are three irrigation districts controlling water distribution.
To add to the situation, the river is under an interstate and in internation-
al agreement.
As in the case of Yakima Valley, the conditions that emerged from the
field data concerning the parameters that would delimit certain solutions
can be divided into two general categories: structural and individual condi-
tions. The critical institutional parameters here include, first of all, the
serious shortage of water for much of the time. This natural idiosyncracy
demands that salts be leached from the soil in order to maintain the viabil-
ity of the land. In addition, there is a high degree of interdependence be-
tween the irrigation districts and they do concern themselves with the
management of their systems. Finally, given trends and developments in the
area, the problem of urbanization and the use of agricultural water is pre-
sent in any proposed water plan.
These institutional patterns provide for interesting communication net-
works. There is a lot of communication between the two larger irrigation
districts regarding water management. Yet communication between officials
and the farmers on the permit system and on other water criteria is notice-
ably lacking. The permit system idea has not been communicated to most of
the farmers. There is also a lawsuit by environmentalists to save phreato-
phytes which consume precious water.
Individual conditions can be again divided into two broad areas of
concern, that of beliefs and that of perceptions. There is a major belief
that on-farm management programs will not have a major impact on water qual-
ity because the poor users of water generally fail financially. Farmers are
not enthusiastic about a district rehabilitation program, and they believe
that they should be able to do what they wish with their allocated water.
There are a few perceptions of officials and farmers that could limit
the types of solutions proposed. New Mexico people see poor water quality
as Texas' problem. There is a great concern that the State Department will
compromise farmers' water rights in order to conclude a ground water treaty
with Mexico. At the same time, maintaining a minimum flow in a water-short
90
-------
area is not perceived as a viable alternative. Officials are also concerned
with good stream water to give to New Mexico and Texas. Finally, there is
an overriding concern by farmers with the quantity of water rather than the
quality of that water. Shortage of water is, thus, the critical element in
the discussion of proposed alternatives.
In conducting field assessments of proposed solutions, because the water
delivery systems are relatively wel1-developed, proposals for improvement
(such as additional lining of ditches and canals) were not enthusiastically
received. Allocations of water are comparatively small, averaging less than
three acre-feet annually, so reductions are not feasible. Increased prices
for water could result in some change in the crops irrigated, but users did
not particularly favor this alternative. Sale of portions or all of annual
allotments were considered a possibility. There is presently some "trading"
of water among district members which results in improved or more efficient
use. It was difficult to conceive of developmental or managerial possibili-
ties that would significantly improve the quality of return flows. Thus,
this Valley may usefully be used to illustrate: a) the inevitable degrada-
tion of water quality when it is used in irrigation; and b) the centrality
of employing BMP's (best management practices) in the use of land and water
in agricultural production.
Generally, this case study has been found to be somewhat unique in com-
parison to others studied and possibly in comparison to many other irrigated
areas. In this portion of the Rio Grande Valley, from Elephant Butte Reser-
voir to Fort Quitman, Texas, water use in agriculture is relatively efficient.
The annual allocation to irrigators is 2.5 to 3-0 acre-feet per acre, smaller
than that of most irrigated areas, and water is conservatively used. Though
improvements are possible, transport and distribution facilities function
reasonably well, irrigation methods are generally appropriate to circumstances
and water is logically allocated to higher value crops. There is a problem of
quality of water in the river, and it is largely attributable to return flows
from irrigation. But increasing concentrations of salt in return flows and
in the river are a largely unavoidable consequence of irrigation. Given
shortages of water, opportunities to affect quality of return flows are lim-
ited and the possibility of significantly affecting quality of water in the
river is smal1.
Part of Section 2 of the Middle Rio Grande Valley analysis contains quite
a number of specific findings concerning causes of the problem, existing mech-
anisms, perceptions, local practices, sensitivity to alternatives, etc. Look-
ing for more general findings, the following brief remarks underline findings
relevant to a broader assessment and evaluation of irrigation return flow
quality control measures:
1. Mesilla Valley is characterized predominantly by salt concentration
rather than salt pickup effects, due mainly to the consumptive use of
water. Thus, this water use contributes to salinity levels greater than
acceptable in drinking standards for both cities of El Paso and Juarez.
2. The study area is also characterized by increasing competing and
conflicting water demands, result of expanding urban demand in El Paso
91
-------
and Juarez, as well as from potential additional agriculture.
3. The state of New Mexico has taken the stand that irrigation return
flow quality is not sufficiently significant to require the employment
of the NPDES permit system.
k. There does exist in the area a market system for use of water which
does result in water use for higher-valued crops.
5. In the general study area, most farmers perceive that they are doing
the best they can and there are no particular new incentives for further
improvements in present practices. If they perceive themselves as doing
their best under the circumstances (as contrasted to Yakima Valley where
there are disagreements as to irrigation methods), there are no particu-
lar groups or parties in the Valley to be blamed for pollution in the
system because of inefficient practices. It should be pointed out that
there are still people who always can find parties or "others" at fault.
The important point to be made here is that, given the circumstances of
the Valley and the limited water supply, there seems to be little margin
for slack or inefficient methods and for blaming large segments of the
Valley for contributing to pollution due to inefficient irrigation
methods.
6. Since many of the questions of irrigation return flow quality control
seem to be localized to the extent that the problem is perceived as
existing in Texas and not in New Mexico, there is obviously a disparity
as to the urgency, nature and far-reaching consequences of the problem
from valley to valley in the entire system.
7. There seems to be a fear and free-floating anxiety that the State
Department will provide ground water to the Republic of Mexico. Under
such circumstances, water shortages may become more acute and contribute
in the long run to further pollution due to the lack of dilution. Given
the limited water, any withdrawal or alternate use creates or exacerbates
problems in irrigated agriculture. It should be noted that presently
El Paso takes little water from the area. Developments and increasing
demands may force withdrawal with potential problems on irrigated
agriculture.
8. The people of El Paso and further downstream in the system question
the nature or significance of irrigation return flow, since virtually no
water is left in the river to create the type of problems that are norm-
ally associated with heavily irrigated areas. This points out that
given the high urbanization trends and the transformation of the charac-
ter of the region, there is a disparity in perceptions between what
otherwise are agricultural interests and the emerging and strong munici-
pal and industrial demands. These in turn contribute to a lessening
of the urgency of irrigation return flow as a dominant and certainly
urgent problem in the area.
9. Finally, while localization of problem perception may be true, it is
also equally true that strong regional orientation is evidenced by the
92
-------
viability of such an organization as the Rio Grande Regional Environment-
al Project. It should be noted that this particular conclusion reflects
mostly the thinking of the leadership in the area rather than the opin-
ions of individual users.
III. Grand Valley (Table 8) —
Grand Valley is basically rural in nature, with modest urbanization,
essentially the city of Grand Junction, which is near the center of the
Valley. Grand Junction's population has grown by 52.6 percent in the decade
from 1960-1970. Further growth will be determined by tourism and energy
development. The rest of the Valley has grown very slowly. There are a
predominant number of family farms with few corporate farms. The larger
farms occupy the western end of the Valley and the smaller farms the eastern
part. There is a high rural nonfarm population.
Regarding irrigation, there exists a federal project that is concentrat-
ing its efforts on salinity control: The Colorado River Basin Salinity Con-
trol Project. With federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Soil Conservation Service; state agencies, and local entities involved in
improving the irrigation system and on-farm management practices, the resi-
dents of the Valley have been exposed to some concerted effort to improve
water quali ty.
The salt load contribution from Grand Valley is the result of saline
subsurface irrigation return flows reaching the Colorado River. The alluvial
soils of Grand Valley are high in natural salts; however, the most signifi-
cant salt source is the Mancos shale formation underlying these alluvial
soils which contain crystalline lenses of salt which are readily dissolved
by the subsurface return flows. Added to this geologic setting is an irriga-
tion water supply which on the average is at least three times greater than
the crop water requirements. Although much of this excess water returns to
open drains as surface runoff, which has negligible impact upon the salinity
in the Colorado River, there are still significant quantities of water that
reach the underlying Mancos shale formation. These subsurface return flows
are the result of seepage losses from canals and laterals, and excessive
deep percolation losses from overirrigation of the croplands. The excessive
irrigation water supplies are the result of early irrigation system develop-
ment in 1882, which resulted in the Grand Valley Irrigation Company obtaining
the first right to water on the Colorado River in the state of Colorado.
The irrigation companies generally terminate their responsibility to the
irrigators at the turnout gates along the canals which discharge water into
the laterals. The water users under each lateral are only informally organ-
ized, and they lack flow measuring devices which greatly hinders their abil-
ity to equitably distribute the waters. The combination of geologic setting,
early water rights that yield abundant irrigation water supplies, lack of
responsibility of irrigation companies to individual water users, the almost
complete absence of flow measuring devices along the laterals, and the low
annual charges for irrigation water all contribute to the salinity problem.
93
-------
TABLE 8. GRAND VALLEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
THE STUZX AREA
The moat significant salt source in the Colorado River Basin resulting from irrigated agriculture is
the Grand Valley in west central Colorado. The Colorado River enters the Grand Valley from the east, is
joined by the Gunnison River at the city of Grand Junction, and then exits in the west. Grand Junction
is the largest city in the Upper Colorado River Basin and is a major trade center. The population of
Grand Valley is about SS, 000. The area has a favorable summer climate for agricultural production with
high temperatures.- Annual rainfall is only 8 inches, but there is a very plentiful irrigation water
supply for 70,000 acres of irrigated land.
THE PROBLEM
The most serious problems resulting from the saline irrigation return flows of Grand Valley are
experienced in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Increasing salinity concentrations are threatening the
utility of water resources in the downstream areas of Arizona, California and the Republic of Mexico.
Detriments to agricultural water users are primarily being encountered in Imperial and Mexicali Valleys,
while, the primary urban detriments are occurring in Los Angeles and San Diego. Recent estimates show
downstream damages (excluding the Republic of Mexico) at $53 million annually, which is projected to be
$124 million annually by the year 2000.
The primary local problem resulting from poor irrigation practices is reduced crop yields or aban-
donment of approximately 30,000 acres. Agricultural land use surveys have shown salt-affected soils,
abandoned irrigated lands resulting from soil salinization, and once productive agricultural lands now
being used for pasture because of high ground water levels, which in turn causes such nuisance problems
as sewer infiltration, basement flooding, and localized swamps which lead to public health problems
associated with the production of mosquitoes.
The salt load added to the Colorado River as it passes through the Grand Valley is the result of sub-
surface irrigation return flows which take into solution the natural salts in the alluvial soils and under-
lying Manaos shale formation. Subsurface return flows entering the near-surface ground water aquifers in
Grand Valley displace highly mineralized water from these aquifers into the Colorado River. The average
salinity of these subsurface return flows is approximately 8700 mg/l, which results in a salt pickup rate
of 10-12 tons per acre annually.
The key to achieving a reduction in salt loading is to lower the ground water levels, which will
result in less displacement of water from the aquifer into the Colorado River. The most effective
means for lowering ground water levels is to reduce the source of ground water flows. The sources of
these subsurface return flows are canal seepage, lateral seepage, and deep percolation losses result-
ing from overirrigation. Together, deep percolation and lateral seepage contribute 82 percent of the
ground water flows.
The most important element in reducing the salt contribution to the Colorado River from Grand
Valley is improved on-faim water management. The predominant method of irrigating is furrow irrigation.
Thus, it becomes highly important that present furrow irrigation practices be modified in order to re-
duce the deep percolation losses that are presently reaching the shallow around water aquifers.
Improved water application practices and scheduling of irrigation applications would allow a reduc-
tion in the amount.of water delivered to the farm. Irrigation scheduling allows the optimum quantities
of water to be applied at the optimum time intervals in order to conserve water and maximize economic.
returns to the farmer. Although the primary emphasis should be "tuning up" present irrigation practices,
the use of more advanced irrigation application methods such as sprinkler irrigation and trickle
irrigation should be encouraged.
The lining of laterals, or conversion to pipelines, would not only reduce seepage and consequently
subsurface return flows, but would also be highly beneficial in conjunction with the addition of flow
measuring devices in providing additional water control. The employment of lateral lining, or pipe-
lines, along with flow measuring devices, would provide a significantly increased potential for improv-
ing farm irrigation application efficiencies, thereby reducing deep percolation losses.
After considerable effort in cutting off the problem at its source, then the requirements for drain-
age will be more nearly minimized. Then, tile drainage can be used as an effective means for removing
(skimming) the less saline waters in the upper portions of the ground water aquifer, thereby reducing the
volume of salts returning to the Colorado River. Tile drainage has the advantage of serving: as: a collec-
tion system for such ealine return flows, which can then be transported to a central desalination plant,
where salts could be removed.
A salinity program in Grand Valley means reducing the annual volume of diversions from the Colorado
River into the canals. The primary question becomes, "What happens to the reduced diversion requirement?"
This becomes a legal question.
94
-------
The range of technological and institutional alternatives for Grand
Valley have already been summarized in Table 3 and discussed in detail in the
appropriate section of the volumes of the case study report. The critical
institutionalized pattern in the Valley is that a program for salinity con-
trol has been established and different agencies are already at work on sys-
tem rehabilitation and on-farm management procedures. Still, the irrigation
companies view their authority as extending only to the headgate and they
will not venture further in the administration of the water on the farm.
There is an expressed concern that the laterals should establish their own
user organization to manage those laterals.
Critical communication parameters affecting this arena are twofold.
First, the relationship between the farmers and the SCS is not very positive.
Second, there is still a question in many people's minds as to what exactly
constitutes pollution. This last question leads us to the individual condi-
tions. There are two broad areas of concern, that of beliefs and of percep-
tions. The salinity problem is perceived as an age-old problem and the pre-
sent crisis atmosphere*is looked upon with a questioning eye. In fact, many
people ask why should residents of Grand Valley pay the costs for problems
that are hundreds of miles away. Water is seen as plentiful in the Valley
with the problem users being the new suburbanites. Finally, water management
is not seen to be as crucial to the problem as many "experts" like to believe.
These perceptions are backed up by a few critical beliefs. There is a pre-
vailing belief that the professional farmer does know how to manage his
water. The newer farmers will adopt new methods, but it will be extremely
difficult for the older farmers to change. Transmountain diversions are be-
lieved to be a cause of many of the salinity problems. Officials believe
that if the water quality is to improve, the physical structures must first
be improved, then the better on-farm management will ensue.
Generally, while there is still a question as to the natural pollution
level of the river, thefocus of attention has been on the "age-old" salinity
problem and to the quantity of water available to the farmer. To a much
lesser extent, water management is seen as a critical aspect of this situa-
tion. This reinforces the belief that the professional farmer does know
how to manage the water; the real culprit is the transmountain diversion to
Denver. Priority in improvements should go to system rehabilitation and
then on-farm management will follow.
One of the most cost-effective technologies for reducing the salt load
from Grand Valley is a combination of lateral lining and on-farm improvements.
Farmer participation in such a program is very important. The retirement of
some croplands which are relatively unproductive should also be considered.
The implementation of such a program will result in excess water being avail-
able for rent or sale to water users upstream from Grand Valley. Sale of
portions of annual allotments would cause prices of water to rise beyond
diversion and distribution costs and to more efficient use of water in agri-
cultural production. When applications of water to crops are reduced to
levels which approximate requirements for growth, return flows will be
diminished and the salinity problem reduced.
95
-------
A number of other conclusions reinforce the theme of institutional alter-
natives in controlling irrigation return flow. For example, the development
of standards and criteria for beneficial use of irrigation water in Grand
Valley would encourage or require limitation of applications of water to
approximate the consumptive use by crops. Deep percolation of excess water
and saline return flows would be correspondingly reduced. Farmers on the
laterals should organize into /ninicompanies to improve the delivery effici-
encies and undertake more than mere distribution of water as it is delivered
to them. Finally, potential state legislation authorizing the irrigation
companies in Grand Valley to rent or sell the excess water resulting from
such a salinity control program could be used to line the canals or to
implement other water management technologies.
IV. The San Joaquin Valley (Table 9)~
Only selected remarks can be made about this area, since no in-depth
study was undertaken. The points that follow are distillations of remarks
from the existing literature and from a reconnaissance field trip undertaken
by members of the interdisciplinary team. By necessity, most of the discus-
sion is descriptive and with the "solutions" indicated being only part of
the phase of generating alternatives.
The San Joaquin Valley includes roughly the southern two-thirds of the
Central Valley of California. The Valley is a broad structural trough sur-
rounded on three sides by mountains and separated from the Sacramento
Valley to the north by the combined deltas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers. The Valley has a total area of 32,464 square miles. The Valley
floor is 250 miles long, 25 to 55 miles wide, and has an area of 8 million
acres (12,500 square miles).
The Valley floor rises gently from sea level at the northern end to 500
feet above sea level at the southern end. A low divide which extends across
the Valley floor between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers separates the
Valley into its two major hydrologic basins—the Tulare Lake Basin in,the
south and the San Joaquin River Basin in the north. The Tulare Lake Basin
is a closed basin (although prior to development it often overflowed into the
San Joaquin Basin) drained principally by Kern, Tule, Kawaeh, and King's
Rivers. The San Joaquin Basin is drained by the San Joaquin River and its
tributaries, principally the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanistaus Rivers, all of
which rise in the Sierra Nevadas to the east. Mean seasonal rainfall on the
Valley floor ranges from 6.5 to Ik inches, with 90 percent occurring from
November to April, inclusive. The summers are hot and dry, with temperatures
as high as 110°F recorded.
Agriculture is the dominant economic activity of the Valley, with approx-
imately 4 million acres of land irrigated. The gross income from agricultural
production was $3.6 billion in 1973 in the eight valley floor counties—
almost half of the statewide total of $7-5 billion. As irrigated development
progressed on the western side of the San Joaquin River Basin, the lower-
lying areas were irrigated first by gravity diversions from the river.
Extension of irrigation into the higher areas depended on pumped ground water
96
-------
TABLE 9. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
THE STUD? AREA
- Occupies the southern two-thirds of the Central Valley of California.
- Watershed area is 32,464 square miles.
- Area of the Valley floor is 12,500 square miles (8 million acres) (250 miles long, SS to 55 miles wide).
- Area irrigated is 4 million acres.
- Elevation—sea level to 500 feet.
- Tao hydrologic basins within the valley:
• Tulare Lake Basin (closed basin in the south).
• San Joaquin River Basin (drained by San Joaquin River in the north).
- Rainfall on the Valley floor is 6,5 to 14 inches annually, with hot, dry summers.
- The study area provides almost half of California's agricultural income.
THE PROBLEM
- Tulare Lake Basin—no natural drainage outlet means that all salts in the water supply remain in the
soil and waters. Accumulation is affecting agricultural production.
- 'San Joaquin River Basin—high, water tables and accumulation of salts in the soil profile necessitate
agricultural drainage. The disposal of the drainage effluent will cause future water quality problems
in the San Joaquin River and potentially San Franaieoo Bay. Even now, return flows degrade the quality.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
- Currently proposed by participating agencies:
• A master drain through the length of the Valley, conveying drainage effluent to the Saaramento-
San Joaquin Delta.
- Other alternatives for disposal of drainage effluent:
• Use for: industrial coolant
marsh management
salt tolerant agricultural drops
agricultural organisms (fish, eta.)
growing algae for poultry and livestock feed
sea-water repulsion in the Helta
oil field repressurization
• Or, desalt or evaporate.
- Better on-farm water management practices would reduce the volume of drainage effluent to be handled.
97
-------
and on systems of relift pumps and canals that conveyed water diverted from
the San Joaquin River (see Status of San Joaquin Drainage Problems, 197M.
The expansion of irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley has brought with
it water quality problems. Early agriculture there relied mainly on river
diversions for irrigation, creating salt balance and drainage problems in
the 1890's and early 1900's that forced sizeable areas out of production.
The use of wells, which lowered the water table, along with improved drain-
age and other efforts, permitted reclamation of most of the land damaged at
that time.
In the San Joaquin Valley, almost 95 percent of the water diverted from
streams and pumped from the ground is used for irrigation only. The Valley's
agricultural waste waters contain salts, pesticides and nutrients. Over the
years, the drainage water's salt concentration is reported to range between
2,000 and 10,000 parts per million, with an overall average of 4,000 to 5,000
parts per million. It is further reported that about 1.7 million acres,
which accounts for about 25 percent of the irrigable land, is potentially
saline; of these, about 1.2 million acres are irrigated.
Sal inity problems in the Valley are characterized by the following con-
ditions: a) the condition that exists as a result of restricted movements of
excess waters, either because of a restricting soil layer or a higher water
table of poor quality; b) due to the above, average amounts of soluble salts
in the soils are above the restriction; and c) the availability of a full and
adequate water supply for irrigation. The salt management problem in the
two basins of the Valley are different. The southern Tulare Basin is a
hydrological1y closed basin. There is no sink for the drainage outflow,
therefore, the residual salts accumulate in the basin. The point sources
include agricultural return flows and discharges from tile drains. Essen-
tially, all of the new salts remain in the soil and waters of the basin.
The problem is therefore salt imbalance in the agricultural waters—a phenom-
enon that results when the input of salts continues to increase over the
output, i.e., drainage water in the Tulare Lake Basin. On the other hand,
the problem of the San Joaquin River Basin is not one of salt accumulation
within the basin, but rather a salt level problem in the main stem of the
San Joaquin River. The salt level problem refers to the concentration of
salts dissolved in the agricultural water in the various parts of the basin.
Tabulations of concentration levels show that the annual contribution of the
San Joaquin River Basin is 1.5 million tons of salt. It is reported that
the joint contribution of salt load from San Joaquin River Basin and the
agricultural drainage water (with a total average annual outflow of 2.3
million acre-feet) is 2.4 million tons of salts.
The amount of rainfall affects the salinity level. In years of normal
and above normal rainfall, the quality of water in the main stem of the river
is adequate for the crops being irrigated; but in dry and critically dry
years, the quality degrades to the point where the river water cannot be
used for some crops. The deterioration of water quality is also due to the
nitrogen content in the irrigation water and/or soil. The soils of the San
Joaquin Valley are reported to be the main contributors of nitrogen to the
drainage waters. Past and present studies indicate a 21 parts per million
98
-------
annual level of nitrogen content in the agricultural waste waters. The
effort in the reclamation is intended to reduce the nitrogen concentration
to 3 to 5 parts per million with tile drains.
The salt management solutions of the Valley's farms involve a place to
put the wastes, i.e., salt sink, and a means of conveying the agricultural
wastes to the sink that entails the master drain. The agricultural salt
management systems consist of on-farm facilities and a master drain to con-
vey waste waters to point of ultimate disposal.
Currently, as a valley wide salt management objective, the Bureau of
Reclamation has completed the first phase of the Federal San Luis Drain
from near Kettleman City to the Kesterson Reservoir, a length of 87 miles
out of the designed total of 113 miles length. In the remainder of the
Valley, in the Tulare Lake area, small evaporation disposal facilities are
constructed. These facilities consist of evaporation basins together with a
grid of drains to dispose of agricultural waste water from an area of 212,000
acres of land.
The irrigation return flow water quality problem of the Valley is more
one of the future than of the present, although in dry years the water qual-
ity of the San Joaquin River even now degrades to the point where it cannot
be used by some crops. Irrigation return flows make up a high proportion of
the flow of the river in the summer and fall months.
The San Joaquin Valley currently has 14*4,000 acres of land drained by
tile drainage systems, with this area likely to expand to over 1,000,000 acres
by 2020. The drainage is required to lower the water table and remove salts
from the soil profile. It is the disposal of waste waters from these drain-
age systems which will lead to water quality problems in the future.
A master drain is proposed to convey agricultural drainage water from
the irrigated lands to a point of disposal, probably in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta. Other alternatives for disposal have been suggested, such
as for industrial coolants, marsh management, salt tolerant agricultural
crops, agricultural organisms, growing algae for poultry and livestock feed,
sea water repulsion in the Delta, and oil field repressurization. The water
could also be desalted for reuse, or simply evaporated. All alternatives
would still require collection and conveyance. If the drainage waters are
dumped into the waters of the Delta, denitrificat ion could be necessary.
There are three basic technological alternative means of coping with
irrigation waste waters in the San Joaquin Valley: a) put the drainage water
to subsequent use within the Valley; b) evaporate the drainage water and
remove the brine; and c) transport the drainage water from the Valley. These
methods could possibly be used in combination to provide the most effective
solution. In addition, a fourth alternative which would reduce the magnitude
of the problem would be to raise the level of on-farm water management in
order to reduce the quantity of wastewater handled.
Regardless of the eventual means of disposal of the Valley's agricultural
waste waters, a reduction in the volume to be handled, and possibly treated,
99
-------
could be achieved by reducing the volume of drainage waters leaving individual
farms. Better on-farm management of existing water supplies may have signif-
icant water quality benefits.
It is obvious that to sustain the multi-billion dollar agricultural in-
dustry in the San Joaquin Valley, substantial investments in agricultural
drainage systems must be made in the next few decades. It should be noted
that the institutional structure is basically set up to emphasize "hardware,"
structural solutions such as drainage. This is something that is also under-
stood by individual users; in turn, such an understanding reinforces and
perpetuates the system. There is, however, a countermove to this established
structural approach through land use management and the attachment of zoning
to statutes such as Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (Russell Freeman, Deputy
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Personal Communication 6/26/75).
In a special report prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation concerning the
"Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage Problems and Proposed
Action Plan," it was pointed out that since water is a critical resource in
the San Joaquin Valley and the energy necessary to produce nitrogen fertiliz-
er is in short supply, the Valley drain water should be considered a poten-
tial resource rather than a waste. A proposed action plan could then include:
a) an interagency cooperative study program to develop a plan to utilize,
handle and dispose of the Valley drainage; b) an effective public involvement
program which would build confidence between the farmer and the residents of
the Bay-Delta region; c) a drain discharge testing program to determine the
impact of Valley drainage on the Bay-Delta; d) consideration of reauthoriz-
ing the San Luis Drain as the first phase of a San Joaquin Valley drainage
outlet system not restricted to serve only the San Luis Project service area;
and e) securing a discharge permit for the San Luis Drain effluent. Again,
it should be noted that there is a distinct bias towards what have been
labelled "structural" or engineering solutions. Yet, it has also been dis-
cussed that optimal water management means minimal discharge (Freeman,
personal communication). Finally, the complexity of both technical and
institutional solutions (part of continuous studies in the area) is based on
a recognition of an almost tripartite physical approach to the problem: to
the north of the Valley there is emphasis on discharge and drainage; in the
middle (around Fresno) integration of ground water and surface, especially
underground replenishment; and to the south (Tulare Lake Basin), evaporation.
General Conclusions
The control of water quality raises two basic issues (which are also
present in any water resources management scheme), namely, incentives and
enforcement. Questions here include: What organizational structure is going
to make the rules and regulations and also enforce them? How is the present
problem of insufficient control going to be alleviated? How can the marginal
value of excess water be operationalized to a water market? What is the sit-
uation with regard to intra-system, inter-state and inter-basin transfers of
water? Broad as these questions may be, they are also part of the general
considerations necessary for the eventual control of irrigation return flow.
100
-------
As repeatedly stated, three basic dimensions of the irrigation system
are central in all strategies of return flow control: water delivery, the
user and removal efforts. With regard to delivery, the critical point is
that Decontrol of the inlet. It has been early agreed that the thrust of
the various alternatives should focus on the user. Improvements in delivery
systems, use of better technology, improvements in removal, etc., should all
be built^around the user. The critical point of this dimension is the manner
of applying the water on the land, i.e., on-farm management.
Constraints to better on-farm management include such factors as lack of
information/technical assistance, lack of control over the water, existing
water rights, lack of physical facilities for use of water, and the lack of
institutional facilitators (tradition, value, system, education, etc.).
Simply, the problem is one of motivating users to internalize better manage-
ment techniques.
Individual motivation can be understood along two dimensions: a) the
capability of the user to change his practices; and b) the mechanisms present
for changing farm practices. Indicators of a farm's capabilities, on the
other hand, would include among others physical capacity (capital), farm
size, type of crop, quantity of water, legal circumstances, organizational
structure of the water delivery system. In short, the capabilities that a
user has to meet the opportunity costs of improvement in on-farm water
management.
Looking back at the data obtained and at the assessment of proposed
solutions, two key impediments seem to stand out with regard to efforts for
controlling irrigation return flows: first, the basic difficulty of moving
from technical research (and quite adequate at that) to the social arena of
implementation. Second, the pervasive negative impacts generated from the
imposition of a system of permits.
The last has become not only a point of contention, but also a rallying
cry for many who increasingly are worrying about the future of irrigated
agriculture in the arid West. No more succinct statement can be made about
the permit system than the one presented by the Colorado Water Congress to
the hearings of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution in June 1977»
which states:
From the very beginning, we have opposed the regulation of
pollution fay irrigation return flow through any kind of permit
system and we continue that opposition. We believe a permit
system Is impractical, ineffective, expensive, and likely to
lead to undue and unnecessary harassment for those, who in many
cases, can ill afford to be harassed by their government.
The text then continues by explicating the factors which led to the opposi
tion of the permit system.
1) The system discriminates against the irrigated farmer and
the west as a region. Regardless of the claims by EPA, we be-
lieve the system was designed to split the agricultural community
101
-------
—eastern nonirrigated agriculture and the west~-since many of
the identical forms and sources of pollution common to both
irrigated and nonirrigated units will go uncontrolled by permit
in the east. Politically, this was a very sound approach by the
EPA.
2) Even though the system is to be based on general permits, we
recognize that individual permits may be issued at a later date
at the discretion of the regional director. Once the agency has
succeeded in expanding its base, in expanding its staff and fund-
ing, individual permits are sure to come, if for no other reason
but to continue the justification for this expanded agency. We
have seen this trend demonstrated over and over again and have
absolutely no basis for believing that it will not occur in this
instance.
3) The entire program appears to be tied to the developing 208
Area-Wide Water Quality Management Program. If the 208 program
fails, outside "authorities" will step in to set the criteria and
determine the extent of permit issuance (by conservancy district,
irrigation district, ditch company or individual). The 208 pro-
gram could be directed toward failure or success and at this point
after nearly two years of exposure to the process, we are still
uncertain as to the intent of the EPA with regard to its fate.
4) Within the agricultural community, one man's return flow is
another man's total supply. Any attempts to reduce the amount of
return flow, in some areas, will severely reduce the total supply.
We believe that few, if any, pollution control officials understand
this relationship and would have a great deal of difficulty accept-
ing this fact even if it were incorporated into an approved 208
plan.
5) What is considered pollution In some areas of the country may
well be considered an essential ingredient to the water supply in
parts of the irrigated west. We believe few pollution control
officials are capable of understanding or accepting this fact.
Finally, it is interesting to point out the conclusion of this part of the
document:
We believe that the solution to agricultural pollution can best
be reached through research and management programs. We believe
that more money should be spent in this area and less on the
administration of an ineffective, harassing permit program. In
the long run, all wijl benefit from this approach.
The question raised by the irrigation return flow quality control efforts
and the ensuing reactions are not necessarily new. What has changed, however,
is their context; the increased sensitivity to local conditions; and; the
continuous vagaries of water supply in the arid West. What is obviously
needed is innovative thinking; combinations of feasible, credible and
102
-------
believable solutions; consideration of pragmatic impediments, especially in
the context of specific areas; and an understanding of the process of change
in order to be able to stop, modify, or adopt proposed solutions or
alternatives.
In summary, the final approach to irrigation return flow quality manage-
ment requires an imaginative combination of physical methods, implementation
measures and institutional arrangements. The success of such a synthesis
will be ultimately based on a gradual, if not hierarchical, testing of alter-
native solution packages, on sensitivity to local conditions, and on a com-
mitted, open process of communication linking appropriate authorities with
individual users. It is this last point that the next section will address,
outlining in a more or less conceptual fashion the challenge of change and
innovation and the difficulties involved in implementation efforts in
controlling agricultural pollution.
103
-------
SECTION 8
THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION: PREMISES AND PROSPECTS
GENERAL REMARKS
Given the centrality of implementation in carrying out policies, it
would be expected that quite significant literature must exist for such an
important process. Yet, very little has been written about implementation
as a process that should almost automatically follow once a policy has been
formulated. Indeed, implementation has been a very difficult and frustrating
affair full of pitfalls in the effort of understanding the continuum of form-
ulating a policy to executing it (Quade, 1975).
It has been assumed that once a decision has been made, and in particular
legal imperatives have been outlined, both public bodies and the public at
large assume that an orderly process of executing the will of the commons will
somehow be orderly implemented as desired. Yet, problems with implementation
are widespread, given the great variety of programs, the interpretation of
the law, and the intricacies involved in carrying out the common will.
Furthermore, this process is complicated by conceptual and methodological
problems revolving around a confusing terminology associated with what one
may broadly call "policy implementation." Synonyms that appear here include
also the process of "innovation," of "communicating" commonality of interest,
of "adopting" new practices, and of "accepting" what is being outlined in
broad strokes in policy (see the discussion in Appendix 2 of Bardach, 1977)-
Beyond the basic, and rather stark, definition of implementation as
"effectively putting into operation policy decisions," the literature seems to
lack any real consensus as to the process through which governmental programs
are implemented. What we have instead are some basic ideas in operations
management or administration management involving an abstract discussion
rather than an analysis of empirical statements that could properly illuminate
the subject. In essence, most of the literature and the theoretical under-
standing of the concept of implementation result from parallel expressions,
especially from the literature of diffusion and adoption of innovations.
It should be noted that so far all previous parts of this report (and
the appropriate parts of the case studies) have been attempting to outline tfte
process of implementation involved in the long and arduous task of defining
the problem to carrying out the imperatives of an explicit or implied policy.
What we must concentrate on at this point are some general remarks as to what
ideally implementation entails and, therefore, further elaborate with the help
of existing literature the characteristics of the process as well as the con-
straints that seem to make implementation a rather difficult affair.
-------
The relevancy of the above rests on the fact that many writers appear to
think of implementation as synonymous with public administration itself. In
this context, what we have is nothing more than the simple execution of some
bureaucratic mandate. Yet, it has been our contention throughout the previous
pages that implementation is a much more difficult process, involving not only
a clear definition of legal imperatives, but also a mobilization of all parties
involved in order to further define, elaborate and executive in a consistent
manner the desire expressed in the particular collective action. Although
all the literature tends to be relatively poor on this topic, the concept of
implementation itself has always been perceived as a central social and poli-
tical problem. Many of the major policies of this country, particularly major
social welfare policies, have been particularly central in understanding
implementation. The urgency of understanding implementation was further
exemplified by the elaboration of the spirit of the National Environmental
Policy Act and of the explicit mandate to involve also (in addition to the
requirements of the legal imperatives and of the professional opinion) the
public as a means for a coherent and cogent scheme of carrying out or execut-
ing expressed policy.
Rather than further discussing this theme of the central i.ty of implement-
ation, we may turn our attention to what the implementation process really
means or implies. With emphasis on water quality problems, implementation
as a concept and process depends on the following:
1. The capacity to manage the administrative or regulatory process.
This indicates three further notions. First, that decisions as to a
particular policy should be unambiguous so that there would exist a cap-
acity to manage comprehensively water quality through appropriate admin-
istrative mechanisms. Second, capacity also implies the existence of
appropriate structures and personnel that would carry out the particular
regulatory process. Finally, under this general capacity or capability
of managing the particular process, one may also include the question of
leadership and the ability to carry out in an unambiguous way the imper-
atives expressed in the proposed action or regulatory process.
2. Fidelity in pursuing management decisions. This broad consideration
is particularly relevant for such a comprehehsive and demanding law as
P.L. 92-500, which, in turn, depends on three particular subjects of
condition, namely: a) the accuracy of relaying and interpreting public
policy; b) the congruence with the original intent of the law when pur-
suing management decisions; and c) resources available for carrying out
this action. In each one of the above, the obvious danger results from
the fact that either an unclear policy or different perceptions—
particularly among implementing agencies—or lack of public support
(including also rivalry of competing agencies) can make management deci-
sions and the implementation process very difficult as the actual
pursuing of the management of the policy differs or is incongruent with
the originally intended policy.
3. Clarity and authoritativeness in communicating and perceiving the
problem. This general consideration in the implementation process implies
many of the things that have been discussed throughout the project,
105
-------
namely, such key items as the understanding of costs involved; the appre-
ciation of the complexity of human motivation and of the counter-intuitive
character of the social system; and finally, the degree of discrepancy
between actual and perceived situations. All of these denote that,
together with the earlier indicated capability of managing the regulatory
process (as well as the extent to which there is an accuracy in carrying
out the policy), there must also be a clarity in understanding all vaga-
ries involved in following the particular process. Simply, if the initial
policy decision is unclear or ambiguous, there is by definition no real
reference point against which to assess its implementation.
4. Egua1iza t i on of ''ex te rna 1'' ? n f1uen ces. Implementation, especially
in the context of water quality, implies two further things: a) the
recognition of pressure groups so that implementation would also command
widespread public support; and b) monitoring of the implementation as to
the effects on individual or groups so that appropriate corrective mech-
anisms can be devised in order to further pursue the original intent of
the law. The latter is particularly important, since policies are flex-
ible and evolving and they are always a response to the particular
demands of a given situation. This point has been particularly central
in our analysis of the problem where the perennial complaint as to the
particular socio-economic context of the western situation has affected
significantly the argumentation as to the advisability of controlling
nonpoint pollution and irrigation return flow.
If the above are some of the basic propositions that one may forward in
any discussion of the process of implementation (and these are only central
considerations that refer roughly to four key concepts, namely capacity,
fidelity, clarity, and equalization), one may conc.lude that the process of
controlling irrigation return flow is an extraordinarily complicated task.
The execution of such a policy requires continuous rearrangement and decision-
making in a shifting context that recognizes the variations of local condi-
tions; interdependencies between present policies and other environmental
measures; and a close interrelationship between physical and nonphysical
dimensions. At the same time, the above also indicate that in pursuing a
policy for improving water quality, specialized institutional arrangements
must be designed with sensitivity to specific socio-economic conditions (as
it became early apparent in the case studies of this project); and a creative
balance between enforcement mechanisms and counter!ncentives, such as the
definition of thresholds, the utilization of market mechanisms, trading in
water rights, and all other such mechanisms that would make possible a com"
prehensive management scheme.
Finally, in discussing the process of implementation, both the spirit and
the letter of the law, as well as the practices and experiences so far, imply
that whatever institutional arrangements take place and whatever mechanisms
are devised to carry out the appropriate mandate, there must be also wide-
spread public support if a policy is to be successfully carried out. This
public support reflects not only the congruence between the spirit of the law
and the interests of affected parties; but, it also points out the relevancy
of policy to the particular situation.
106
-------
THE DIFFICULTIES' WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS IN AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
In view of the conclusions provided in Section 7 and the previous general
remarks, we can now return to the original question posed in this study: Why
Is it difficult to implement controls in agricultural pollution: The most
succinct way of answering this deceptively plain question is to articulate
our approach by considering three sources of difficulties: a) that the prob-
lem is wrongly conceived or ill-defined; b) that the "solution" is wrong,
i.e., the means employed are inappropriate; and c) that there is simply an in-
ability to bring together general, theoretical concepts or policy principles
with the exigencies of concrete problematic situations. These points can be
summarized in the categories of Table 10.
Using this table as a backdrop, we can now discuss further the difficul-
ties in implementing controls in agricultural pollution. The literature
abounds here in a number of conditions. With the help of Table 10, one may
articulate further both the problematic situations and the responses. Diffi-
culties in implementation involve:
1. Disagreements as to the policy or specific decision, especially
because the action may be perceived as complicated, noninterpretable,
etc.
2. Problems with negotiation provisions of the policy, and the attendant
conflict of interest among affected groups.
3- Attitudinal changes and discrepancies in the four key conditions of
an effective implementation process discussed previously (i.e., capacity,
fidelity, clarity, equalization).
k. The degree of organizational preparedness and the balance between
enforcement mechanisms and incentives for compliance.
5. Shifting of priorities, including uncertainties, changing circum-
stances, as well as what, in the literature of decision-making, has been
referred to as "regret" or changes in policy orientation.
6. Finally, a major difficulty has to do with the risks involved in
making important decisions,1 particularly with regard to far-reaching,
secondary, long-range effects of present actions.
The literature has further elaborated many of these difficulties that
have been summarized above. The work of Pressman and Wildawsky is particularly
useful in the presentation of the impediments to implementation. There, key
items include: a) contradictory or ambiguous legislative criteria; b) inher-
ent administrative antagonisms between agencies; c) uncertainty of local
action, i.e., management capability and an institutional network that pro-
hibits new structures to evolve; and d) impossible time schedule for meeting
deadlines (which is a central argument in the debate as to irrigation return
flow control measures). It becomes apparent that a central impediment to
implementation efforts results from the fact that a Jot of actions and
policies are attempted without proper planning. This becomes particularly
107
-------
TABLE 10. PROBLEM-SOLVING SCENARIOS
PROBLEMATIC SITUATION
RESPONSE
1. Wrong problem
1. Re-examine the problem
a. define parameters
b. increase sensitivity to local
conditions
c. obtain public response
2. Wrong solution (wrong
approach)
Identify appropriate solution
a. develop range of alternatives
b. examine "balanced decision"
c. assess range of consequences of
each alternative
d. develop feasible design
3. Inability to link general
concerns with site-specific
condi tions
3- Build the basis for implementation
a. relate local to general conditions
b. link theory and practice
c. articulate social process of
implementation
d. encourage public participation
e. allow for monitoring and feedback
as well as flexible solutions (so
that they can be continuously
improved—continue evaluation and
reevaluation)
important if one notes that old understandings and agreements seem to dissolve
as new individuals and newly affected parties enter the program. The end re-
sult is a lack of coordination, legal and procedural differences, lack of
power, and unexpected shifts. The geometric growth of interdependencies fol-
lowing the introduction of a new policy come about as a result of evolution
over time; shifting priorities; and of disagreements over "means to an end"
by various involved agencies and groups. One basic reason for which programs
survive is that they tend to adapt themselves to their environment over a long
period of time. Accommodations tend to appear, including new interpretations
of the legal mandate as well as policy reorientations.
The obvious conclusion of the literature and present study is that policy
formulation and implementation are not congruent. Quite often there is an
overest imation of one's resources and abilities, as well as of the original-'
intent of the law, to carry out expressed desires for controlling the sur-
rounding environment. It becomes important that all such difficulties of
implementation should be made part of an initial formulation of policy by
108
-------
developing: a) a realistic time frame; b) accuracy in pursing management
decisions; c) congruence with original intent; d) organizational machinery
needed for executing a program; and e) recognition of appropriate pressure
points (Pressman and Wildawsky (1973).
All in all, the interrelationship between problems, publics, processes,
policies, and institutional mechanisms must be better articulated, if the
capability to carry out policies is to come about. If we are supposed to
systematically pursue implementation efforts, we must also understand the
current incapacities for executing particular policies, including: a) the
capabilities that bear directly on the problem at hand; b) the organizational
incentives for overcoming adjustment problems in organizing, expanding, or
redirecting current policy; c) public and media pressure and the relationship
between rhetoric and action; d) the recognition that decisions must be flex-
ible in order to include escape clauses for postponement and/or compromise;
and e) the understanding that the regulative process itself must be charac-
terized by "mutual risk-taking." This implies mutual rotating in enforcement
since implementators quite often have very few cues as to how to do their work.
Risks should involve both the regulator and the regulated. But, to what
larger dimensions of implied change do all such problematic conditions of
implementation refer to?
THE ATTRIBUTES OF CHANGE
Underlying the previous discussion is the much larger concept of social
change and the associated parts of a process which includes diffusion of inno-
vation and resistance to change. By social change, we broadly mean some alter-
ation in the social system. The question that arises here is how much altera-
tion constitutes change and to what extent introduction of a new policy, act,
or other type of intervention constitutes only a partial modification rather
than truly a major change.
There is no reason to enter into a lengthy argument as to what change or
social change really imply. In the context of water resources planning,and
particularly with the innovation introduced with the provisions of P.L. 92-
500, it should be pointed out that any type of a new water legislation can be
regarded as an innovation (change) with the potential for eliciting a range of
responses from a variety of social units. The range of responses would in
time generate processes whose outcomes could affect the viability of existing
projects. At the same time, such legislation (as well as any type of water
resource development) has the potential of restructuring the opportunities
for action, and foreclosing or reducing existing ones. The type of social
change initiated by the provisions of a new policy will affect the degree to
which innovation is adopted by a target population, depending on^the perspec-
tives, assumptions and operational capabilities of the implementing agencies.
The literature on change, innovation, diffusion and utilization phenome-
na is quite voluminous and it will be impossible even to summarize the major
elements transcending such a discussion. Important throughout here, however,
is the general connecting concept of diffusion of innovation. Key among all
109
-------
innovation-diffusion-ut11ization continuum of analysis are the following
factors (Havelock, 1973):
1. Linkage, or the number and variety of the interactive networks be-
tween the features of the innovation-diffusion' process.
2. Structure, or the degree of the systematic organization and coordina-
tion of this process (including such key elements or components of the
process as the sender, the user, the message, and the innovation itself).
3. Openness, which is a critical factor implying the social climate
regarding the favorableness or degree of willingness to change.
**• Capaci ty, indicating the capability (especially of the receiver unit)
to marshall diverse resources in order to adopt a particular change.
5. Reward, or the amount of positive reinforcements for compliance with
the new provisions of the policy.
6. Proximity, involving the nearness in time, place and context, and the
congruence of the innovation with older societal forms (particularly in
the case of irrigation return flow, the familiarity of the proposed
change with existing socio-economic conditions).
7. Synergy, or the number, variety and persistence of forces that can be
mobilized to produce the innovation effect.
According to the literature cited in the Reference and Bibliography
Sections, such factors can be used as a means to examine the various dimensions
of the innovation-diffusion process as a whole. They can also help us examine
in the present study the change initiated by a new policy, such as P.L. 92-500,
in the context of a much broader model of diffusion and utilization phenomenon
based also on larger communication principles. ("Who says what, to whom, by
what channels, and to what effect?")
The literature at this point is quite extensive concerning the whole
discussion of adopting innovations and implementing change. Important for our
argument, however, are the factors that contribute to a resistance to innova-
tion. Such factors, in the context of irrigation return flow, are particu-
larly important because they exemplify threats to the established social
structure. The resistance to innovation is proportional to the amount of
change required in the social structure as well as proportional to the
strengths of social values challenges. Changes associated with irrigation
return flow measures provide us with a dramatic case of resistance to innova-
tion by threatening vested interest, individual lifestyles and existing net-
works of long-established social values and practices.
The review of literature has Identified quite a number of significant
factors related to the impetus for innovation (which in their opposite can be
considered as constraints or resistance to innovation). Such factors from the
literature and from our own analysis involve: a) the recognition of the need
for change; b) project decision elements, such as degree of goal congruence,
110
-------
occurrence of feasibility, risk, estimated probability of success, etc.;
c) proposed policy structure and process, such as clarity, equalization, level
of policy planning, resources required, degree of rewards, level of interac-
tion with external sources, etc.; d) organizational structure and process,
including level of cooperation, communication, clarity and nonambiguity in
demands and responsibilities, leadership, resources, etc.; e) outcome consid-
erations, such as degree of success, level of assumed profitability, imple-
mentability by the user, etc.; and f) miscellaneous factors including rate
of adoption of change, availability of information, level of leadership sup-
port, reorientation in perceptions, etc. All the above simply imply that the
attributes of change and the factors facilitating or constraining implementa-
tion are part of a much more complex process that is very difficult to isolate.
The important point to be underlined here is that the process of implementa-
tion, as outlined here and as pursued through the case studies, points out
that one must recognize early the need for an establishment of clear defini-
tions of the problem, the appropriate organizational infrastructure, and the
clarity and understanding of matching the intent of the law with realistic
expectations of affected parties.
INNOVATION, DIFFUSION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGE
Let us now expand the argument on change and water resources planning.
The general statement can be made that since water resources are for the most
part common property, some type of control must be exercised in order to
achieve the most socially desirable or best use of them. In this regard,
P.L. 92-500 is part of a collective expression which affects this control over
individual and group actions via institutional arrangements, i.e., a set of
rules and crystallized norms which involve entities or organizations with the
functional responsibilities to implement them. Given the fact that P.L. 92-
500, as well as any other attempt to reconstruct existing rules concerning
water quality, implies new organizations for implementing and interpreting
them, the question is how does one identify a good institutional arrangement?
Or, what are the appropriate evaluative criteria?
The question is a fundamental one, and it has been at the forefront
throughout the study. These evaluative criteria have been early established
when we discussed the question of a "balanced" or appropriate solution in an
earlier section (see Figure 4). In light of the discussion in the literature
as well as of experiences gained, the following characteristics seem to be
particularly relevant to general institutional arrangements, identified with
proper water resources management:
1. A good institutional arrangement for water resources policy and the
basis for implementation is one that ultimately facilitates social choice.
Anything that appears to inhibit or prevent the very act of choice, deci-
sion or the discussion of a wide range of alternatives works against the
fundamental principles of good organizational structure.
2. Institutional arrangements must also reflect in some reasonable way
what has been called political efficacy. This implies an incorporation
of considerations concerning the willingness of all political actors and
111
-------
units to run risks and incur costs which may look at first glance quite
unrealistic.
3. Institutional arrangements must also facilitate decisions based on an
understanding of the far-reaching consequences resulting from a mix of
social values and from an expanded time horizon. This particular criter-
ion is difficult to achieve because it involves not only questions of
strategic uncertainty with regard to future environments, but also maxi-
mization of economic welfare in conjunction with considerations of social
values. Indeed, the problem in current environmental legislation has
been that interested parties in water quality management have used dif-
ferent ways of weighing a variety of benefits and costs. The debate on
institutional arrangements must consider not only net material benefits
of individuals and groups, but also such intangibles as social well-being
and qua 1 i ty of 1 i fe.
4. Institutional arrangements must also recognize a decision-making
process which takes into account the preferences and interests of those
clearly affected by particular policy decisions. This consideration
points to the obvious, namely, that the interests need not only to be
articulated by appropriate organizations, but also must be taken into
account for units, individuals, or groups that constitute what may be
called "silent constituencies."
5. An ideal type of institutional arrangement must also have some con-
straints on the losses that it can impose on the individual and on the
costs required for its implementation. This requires a mix of material
and nonmaterial benefits and costs as well as the potential deprivation
of a certain way of life highly valued by the affected parties.
6. Finally, a good institutional arrangement must also produce decisions
which not only are acceptable as legitimate, but are also the result of a
balance between what is desirable and acceptable. This point has been
made earlier in the discussion of how one arrives at a "balanced" deci-
sion and runs throughout the process of implementation outlined in pre-
vious pages and in the material of the case studies. In essence, a
"good" institutional arrangement recognizes the degree to which all
criteria outlined above come out as a result of a proper mix that bal-
ances what is legally appropriate, economically viable, socially accept-
able, and politically feasible, as well as technologically sound.
In continuing the discussion on criteria for adopting changes and for
the development of institutional mechariisms for implementing change, it is
obvious that the set of qualities outlined before suggest a whole set of inter-
locking propositions in the diffusion-innovation process. Using again the
general literature on the diffusion-innovation process, policies, organiza-
tions and change, implementation efforts must also consider such additional
factors as: a) reliabi1ity, or the extent to which a policy can work as
intended and that institutions devised can adequately function within the
context of the expectations for their operation; b) i mp1ementa t i on costs,
including the administration of the policy (especially costs of enforcement),
as well as the effect upon the public and private sector; c) efficiency _and_
112
-------
efficacy, implying the extent to which the proposed policy and change should
avoid short-run technical and allocational inefficiency, responding at the
same time with sensitivity to questions of long-range social effectiveness;
d) stochastic flexibility, or what in the literature has been referred to as
a response to variations in the state of the surrounding system and the extent
to which that flexibility is valued given its costs and gains; e) dynamic
adaptabi1ity, or the extent to which the policy can be self-correcting
d) distribution equity and the question of equalization of gains and costs
of the proposed programs, both within and among income, occupation, culture,
and^geographic groups; and g) social and political effects, or the long-range
socio-political arrangements and processes that would not injure the viability
of other programs and/or other institutions.
There are many more criteria that one could consider here, and the liter-
ature abounds in such considerations as environmental risk aversions, psycho-
logical impact, economic consequences, etc. All such items are part of sets
of criteria and considerations that are useful in implementing changes such as
the ones outlined in the innovative provisions of P.L. 92-500.
Turning now to the concrete steps of the present study, one should recall
the methodological premises and phases of research outlined earlier in
Section 4. Four phases have been used in discussing the process of implement-
ation: a) systematic mapping or problem description; b) identification of
potential solutions or generation of alternatives; c) assessment and evalua-
tion of potential solutions,; and d) building the basis for implementation.
It is important to concentrate at the last.two phases in order to link
earlier descriptive efforts with the more specific (and relevant at this
point) process of decision-making. The relevant element is the need for a
critical assessment. Utilizing the work of Janis and Mann (1977), we can
distinguish five stages associated with critical assessment and decision-
making:
1. App rai si ng the cha11enge, or the extent to which one can maintain an
attitude of complacency about whatever course of action must be pursued.
The question that is being raised during this first stage is the extent
to which the risks are serious, if current practices are not changed.
In the context of irrigation return flow, ah event may disturb the equi-
nimity of a particular group because threats posed by this ecological
process can no longer be ignored. Challenging information may be gener-
ated by impressive communications that argue in favor of a new course of
action; or by legally imposed mandates of change.
2. Surveying alternatives. During that stage and after the confidence
or desirability of old practices have been shaken by the information
contained in the challenge (in this case, the provisions of P.L. 92r50Q
unequivocally and unambiguously maintain that irrigation return flow rs
a problem), then individuals and groups begin to focus attention on one
or more alternatives. It is at this stage that decision-makers are
inclined to cling to the policy which they are currently committed to,
if possible. Only after being exposed to a powerful challenge or a
113
-------
persuasive argument, affected parties or decision-makers can really
search for fresh information about better alternatives.
3. Weighing alternatives. At this stage of decision-making, delibera-
tions begin about the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative
until decision-makers feel reasonably confident about selecting the one
that will best meet their objectives. It is here that the discussion
of irrigation return flow seems to be particularly relevant in that it
permits the creation of a balanced set that must be evaluated in order
for vigilant affected parties to become aware of the gains and losse.s that
have not previously been taken into consideration. Although there is the
possibility of future regret, decision-makers here become very careful
in the appraisal of alternatives, in that there is a search for informa-
tion that would be supportive of the alternatives that are being
discussed.
k. Del iberat i ng about commitment, or the extent to which the implementa-
tion of the best alternative can take place. In this part of the
decision-making process, the general provisions and in many respects
interpretable provisions of the law become the nodal point for implement-
ing decisions by realizing that both implementers and affected parties
are "locked into" a particular alternative. This realization in the
decision-making theory makes for reconsideration of just how serious the
risks involved might be. A lot of the discussion about the provisions
of P.L. 92-500 and its nonpoint solution have to do not only with the
real essence of Stage 1 (the appraising of the challenge), but to what
extent, once committed to a particular alternative, there may be far-
reaching risks and consequences involved.
5- Adhering despi te negative feedback. During this last stage, many
decisions (and in our case the decision to implement P.L. 92-500) go
through a relative quiet period until unfavorable events or communica-
tions become negative feedback in the form of potential challenges to
the newly adopted policy. Post-dec!sional bolstering of the counter-
argument and increased interpretation of the provisions (which to start
with have not been clearly thought out) raise the threshold for
responsiveness to challenges. The conclusion during the last stage
(which is very important in that a lot of regret and post-decisional
backtracking is taking place) is that the decision-maker's capacity to
tolerate negative feedback depends also on how completely and accurately
the decision-maker has worked out the decisional balance sheet during
the preceding stages of arriving at the decision.
The implications of all the above are rather obvious not only theoretically,
but also for the cases analyzed in the present study. If the decisional bal-
ance sheet is based on an ambiguous appraisal of the proposed change, if the
alternatives surveyed do not have acceptable means for dealing with the
change, and if the weighing of the alternatives do not meet certain require"
ments, then the deliberation about committing one to a given option becomes
difficult and, therefore, negative feedback makes difficult the ultimate
impli cation.
-------
In order to successfully implement new measures for irrigation return
flow quality control, we need to understand not only existing dimensions of
tne^problem, but, more importantly, the dynamic process of assessing and eval-
uating alternatives through which implementation becomes feasible. Two key
aspects of this process are especially important. First, the structural
features that make effective implementation possible (i.e., the institutional
infrastructure that guarantees the utilization of a variety of technologies in
a given socio-economic environment). And, secondly, the dynamic process of
implementation which coincides with the more general question of bringing
about change (i.e., the stages necessary for bringing about desired altera-
tions in the way people do things).
A controversial but highly important point is, then, the simple, straight-
forward question: how are we going to implement an acceptable, reasonable,
feasible, realistic, and, if nothing else, mandated solution? Before proceed-
ing with some general notions as to the building of a basis for implementation,
we can theoretically surmise that such an implementation capability implies at
the very least: a] knowledge about the need for change; b) the building of a
decentralized decision-making capability; c) communication of the decision to
all affected parties; d) proper timing; and e) respect for local conditions
and responsiveness to specific problematic situations.
BUILDING THE BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS
We have now reached a critical point in our analysis in that we should
attempt to conclude what implementation efforts may involve beyond the process
that we described earlier, namely, the definition of the problem, analysis of
alternatives, assessment, evaluation, and decision-making.
An interesting model of the policy implementation process has been devel-
oped by Thomas B. Smith (1973) who has viewed policies as deliberate actions
by government in order to establish new transaction patterns on institutions
or to change established patterns withiTi old institutions. In this regard,
policy formulated by a government serves as a tension-generati.ng force in
society. In this type of a model (which has been widely accepted in the
literature), the policy implementation process can be seen as involving foxir
components:
l
1. The idea1ized po1icy, that is, the idealized patterns of interaction
that the policy-makers are attempting to induce. Four relevant categor-
ies of variables comprise this idealized policy: a) the formal policy;
b) the type of policy; c) the program; and d) images of the policy.
2. The target group, defined as those who are required to adopt new
patterns of interaction by the policy, or the people most directly
affected by the policy and who must change to meet the demands of the
policy. A number of factors are particularly relevant here such as the
degree of institutionalization or organization of the target group; the
leadership patterns; and, the prior policy experience of the target
group.
115
-------
3- The implementing organization, usually units of governmental bureau-
cracy responsible for the implementation of policy. Three key variables
further explicate this component: a) the structure and personnel; b) the
leadership of the administrative organization; and c) the implementing
program and capacity.
k. Envi ronmenta1 factors, or those elements in the environment, that
influence or are influenced by the policy implementation. They include
the host of socio-demographic, cultural, political, economic conditions,
as well as the legal context outlining the particular policy.
This general model of the policy implementation process can be seen in
Figure 16.
Polieym
Proce
t
aking
ss *• Policy
Implementin
Organizatio
* 1
1
-» 1
1
t
! ^
Idea
Enviro
Idealized Policy
Tensions
Feedback •*-
^Transactions
I
Institutions
SOURCE: Smith, 1973, p. 203.
Figure 16. A model of the policy implementation process.
Using as a backdrop this general model of the implementation process,
we can further elaborate some critical dimensions affecting efforts for exe-
cuting formulated policies. To start with, we can borrow from Brunswick's
lens model (Brunswick, 1952). The lens model assumes that individuals
rarely have direct access to the depth variable (the distal stage) that they
must judge. Instead, the environment gives rise to a number of surface var-
iables (proximal cues) of imperfect reliability and validity upon which they
must base their inferences. Thus, there is a zone of ambiguity that lies
between the observable proximal cues and the unobservable distal state. It
is the properties of this conceptual space that evoke different judgment
processes and that make judgment tasks more or less difficult.
Perception's role in innovation and change is crucial. In many regards,
the cognitive capabilities of individuals determining the type and degree of
impact that innovations have (and conversely affect the rate and extent of
implementation). It is important, therefore, to expand our conceptual frame-
work by incorporating elements of a process of "cognitive orientation."
Different individuals and organizations perceive meaning in the world by
116
-------
their respective ways of organizing the various stimuli in the surrounding
environment. Meaning, then, becomes a result of "configuration" or the pat-
terning of various elements in the surrounding world. This patterning is
developed by the receiver's cognitive structure which channels to various
degrees what the receiver sees and, therefore, organizes what is meaningful.
tGiven this understanding, innovation or change (and in this context the
provisions of P.L. 92-500) are part of a process of "configuration," i.e.,
the combining of two or more elements not previously related, especially as
exemplified in the provisions for controlling nonpoint pollution. Implement-
ing an_innovation (new policy) becomes, then, the procedure for establishing
a configuration among a population which, if successful, will be inserted into
the institutional fabric of the social system and, thus, become "adopted."
The procedure for implementing can be described by a new term, that of
"closure." Closure in this context is the completion of a configuration. A
configuration that does not complete induces tension. The problem, then, is
to effect closure in such a configurational pattern as to adapt to the environ-
ment and become acceptable and part of the larger social fabric.
the key question here is how one achieves closure. Closure is achieved
by presenting the innovation in such a manner as to be in an implementable
form. This can be done through a process that may be labeled as "bracketing"
(Bruner, 1957)- Bracketing is based on a number of principles and constraints
described earlier. This gradual narrowing of the category in which a policy
Js placed involves four segmential decisional stages:
1. Primitive categorization, or the introduction of a new idea into a
community in a manner where the meaning is minimal.
2. Cue search, or the presentation of information about the innovation
(change) in a manner whereby the community can start the creation of
configuration, through a scanning for additional information. In this
stage, innovation can be diffused into the existing institutional struc-
ture by high cue-to-policy probability linkages. The innovation can
then be viewed in the context of an existing institutional framework.
3. Confirmation check, or the process whereby alternative configurations
are eliminated from the receiver's cognitive frame of reference. The
search, then, is limited to additional confirmatory cues.
4. Conf i rma t i on comp1etion, acceptance of the innovation, or implement-
ation through a termination of cue search. In this last stage, openness
to additional cues is greatly reduced and inconsistent or inappropriate
cues are either "thrown out" or modified to fit the policy.
These four general stages in the literature of decision-making, supported also
by the general principles of social change and diffusion of innovation,
emphasize how decision-making becomes a link between policy formulation and
policy execution. Obviously, there is quite an additional number of attitud-
Inal and structural conditions that must be taken into account in order to
bridge what has been conceived as a policy imperative and what would result
in implementation. In this context, it should be important to relate the
117
-------
discussion in Section 4 in which we conceptualized the bridging between what
is "ideal" and what is "practical" or implementable.
The critical idea in this exposition is that of closure, i.e., blocking
off alternative modes of configuration or activities which will inhibit imple-
mentation. This particular approach does not indicate a one-way process, but
an interaction between the sender and receiver. The previous discussion
brings forward a number of more encompassing models of the process of innova-
tion and diffusion. Part of building the basis for implementation is based
also on the specifics of the process of innovation diffusion which relates how
the innovation (change) is diffused throughout a social system, and becomes
accepted. This process entails two conditions that must be taken into consid-
eration: a) the transmission process; and b) the diffusion and utilization
model.
The innovation-diffusion literature comprises a vast number of studies
and theoretical pieces which examine the various aspects of this process. Our
main emphasis here is to search for conditions that provide a more conducive
environment for the adoption of an innovation. Regarding the different as-
pects of this process which are integrated into the conditions determining the
degree of innovativeness, two general dimensions emerge: characteristics of
the receiver and characteristics of the innovation. In terms of the receiver,
the literature concentrates on factors which predispose one to accept or reject
an innovation. A great variety of personal characteristics have been de-
scribed, as well as the group's influence on the individual. Generally, the
receiver of an innovation has been examined at different levels of abstraction
as to various characteristics which yield a greater conduciveness toward
change. Other researchers believe that if a model of innovation-diffusion
is to be constructed, one must look at the interaction between the innovation
and the receiving system. Two aspects of innovation have been examined: its
intrinsic and extrinsic attributes. Intrinsic attributes are those charac-
teristics which are inherent in the innovation itself, such as its divisibil-
ity, complexity, visibility, and others. Extrinsic attributes are character-
istics of the innovation which have meaning only in the context of specified
audiences or adoption settings. These attributes include such conditions as
the degree of radicalness (departure from the norm), cost, and relative
advantage. Perhaps a better way of summarizing the concept is through the
help of two accompanying figures (17 and 18). With regard to the different
attributes of an innovation, other researchers insert these innovations into
social settings and examine how they permeate such systems through communica-
tions, opinion leaders, or gatekeepers.
As indicated earlier, the process of innovation-diffusion involves how
the innovation is diffused through a social system. This entails two condi-
tions that must be taken into consideration: a) the tranmission processes;
and b) diffusion and utilization models. Havelock (1973) has described three
transmission processes: one-way diffusion, one-way feedback and two-way
transmission. One-way diffusion is used at times when the user is a receiver
only and when that user cannot enter into a relationship with the sender.
This form of communication is adequate for transmission of knowledge when the
message is not likely to elicit audience resistance or when the goals of the
communicator focus on informing the receiver, making the receiver aware of
118
-------
DIMENSIONS:
Some categories Describing the Dimensions
Radi calness-
rPerformance
"-Structural
Cost-
Risk/Uncertainty
Initial
Consequence
•Return on Investment (profitability)
Relative
Advantage"
Advocate-
Congruence
Compatibi 1 i ty
Alternatives
• Importance
-Efficiency
Terminal i ty
Longevity Potential
j-Time Saving
Avoidance of Discomfort
Di rection —
Behavi or
Communication.
media
E Top/Down
Bottom/Up
Inside/Outside
•Number of Gatekeepers
•Type rMass
'-Face-to-Face
Figure 1?. Extrinsic attributes of an innovation.
119
-------
Stage-
Research
•Development
Diffusion
Divisibility-
•Communicabi1ity
•Visibility
•Demonstration/Trailabi1i ty
Complexity (technical)
•Evaluation Capability
•Extensiveness/Longevity Potential
•Susceptibility to Continued
Modi fi cation
Public vs. _
Private
•Reversibi1ity
•Commitment
•Gatewayabi 1 i ty
Figure 18. Intrinsic attributes of an innovation.
120
-------
certain information, or arousing the receiver's interest. One-way feedback
transmission's used when some response of the receiver will be evoked. It
is an essential mechanism for obtaining receiver information in large systems
where two-way communications are impractical. Feedback mechanisms include use
of public archives, private records, attitude and opinion surveys, observa-
tions, petitions, among other media. Two-way transmission is used when it is
vital that information about innovations be transmitted in a setting where
free and immediate feedback can be received and responded to. It is this
type of communication that is needed to bring about complex change. There
are various methods to implement this type of communication; including T-
groups, public participation programs, among others. In summary, one-way
media is an effective means of informing mass audiences about an innovation
while two-way transmission is imperative for the adoption of innovations
requiring alterations in attitudes and behavior.
The process of diffusing an innovation can be diagrammed in Figure 19-
While this figure depicts the degree of progressive involvement by individu-
als, the same type of logic can be applied to aggregates. Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971) view the collective innovation decision-making process
similarly by describing five steps in the process: a) stimulation of inter-
est in the need for new ideas; b) initiation of the new idea in the social
system; c) legitimation of the idea by power holders; d) decision to act by
members of the social system; and e) the execution of the idea.
As emphasized in the extrinsic attributes of an innovation, it is how
social actors in a social structure perceive and define the innovation that is
of critical importance. How that structure is organized will determine the
parameters for the extrinsic attributes of the innovation. The organization
is the focus of analysis, for no innovation will be adopted if it is going to
be introduced to individuals as independent entities. The key categories of
organizational components are summarized in Figure 20. Each of these dimen-
sions (and the interactive totality of all such components) become critical
points of differentiation,'integration and interface that may facilitate or
hinder adoption of innovation. The process of implementation becomes the
synthesis of diffusion elements following an innovation with its specific
attributes through a specific organizational structure. A key concern is the
institutionalization of a new trait-making condition in the target social
system. A paradigm for this prpcess includes the following steps: stimula-
tion, initiation, legitimation, decision, action (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971»
p. 276). Stimulation is the subprocess where someone becomes aware that a
need exists for a certain innovation within a social system. Initiation is
the subprocess where a new idea receives increased attention by members of
the social system and is further adapted to the needs of the system. Inno-
vation is, then, legitimized and sanctioned by the power holders in the social
organfzation. At the end, there is a decision to act on the innovation, which
eventually is implemented (executed).
Before concluding with some practical considerations as to how the dif-
fusion of innovation relates to the implementation of decisions concerning
irrigation return flow, we need to make some final remarks as to the central-
ity of the role of the individual water user (the receiver of the change or
innovation). In looking at the receiver, the critical concern is to discover
121
-------
Innovation becomes
routine; part of
recipient's behavioc.
Decreasing involvement
with accustornization
and internalization
High involvement: efforts
to adopt the innovation
ui
5»
O
•z.
LU
s:
High involvement: action
information seeking, try-out
Moderate involvement:
information seeking
Slight involvement:
beginning awareness
TIME
Figure 19- Involvement of social unit during adoption process.
122
-------
DIMENSIONS:
Some Categories Describing the Dimensions
ts)
VA>
Personnel-
Faci1i ties and
Infrastructure
Procedures
and Rules
Leadership
Boundary Spanning
Supportive (nonactive)
Dissidents
-Capaci ty
-Si ze
• Complex!ty
-Heterogenei ty
^•Growth rate
•Autonomy (boundary)
•Communication Channels
rGoal-
rDiffuse
Speci fi c
-Number
-Ambigui ty
•Formal
•Informal
LTask-
-rOrganizational Rationality
^-Technical Rationality
-rCentrali zation
l-Formal i zation
Figure 20. Organizational components.
-------
the conditions that will result in the receiver becoming more innovative. Of
importance for the argument at hand is what are the conditions that influence
the adoptive behavior of the receiver (and which eventually lead to group
acceptance).
Figure 21 is a modified diagram of Jones' (196?) configuration of the
factors affecting the adoption behavior of a receiving unit. Community norms
and institutional factors describe how the community is generally organized
as a social unit. It encompasses the range of dimensions which differentiate
that community from its environment; i.e., through land tenure systems, types
of social organization, kinship systems, etc. These parameters result from
the particularistic configuration of historical, economic and religious fac-
tors which have emerged and in combination with socio-psychological charac-
teristics and situational constraints affect the rate and extent of adoptive
behavior.
Perhaps the above has been a rather long theoretical excursion into the
concept of change and diffusion of innovation. They are, however, the indirect
means for helping in the synthesis of empirical findings concerning implement-
ation. According to various authors, implementation is seen as a process of
pressure politics; of the massing of assent; as administrative control; as
the process of intergovernmental bargaining; as the complexity of joint
action; or as a system of games. This literature describes admirably the
problems encountered in the implementation phase (or execution of policy),
but there is still a lack of general Izabi1ity from which a theoretical model
may spring forth. We must return to the specific premises of this study and
to the initial observation that implementation is really the very dynamic
process itself of definition, investigation, analysis, and evaluation of
alternatives. The process of arriving at appropriate solutions, the assess-
ment of alternatives, and the patterns of interaction and feedback are, in the
best sense of the word, the basis for an eventual implementation.
What all the above imply is that the implementation process as related
to the larger understanding of change and diffusion of innovation requires
quite a complex system of interlocking factors whose modeling is quite diffi-
cult, especially if one is considering the varying circumstances of many
valleys in the arid West. In the context of the findings of the present study
and with sensitivity to the literature reviewed, we can develop some prelimi-
nary operational principles aimed at implementing innovations. The following
principles simply provide a checklist of key points and types of activities
that must be taken into account in implementing a policy option, such as the
provisions of P.L. 92-500.
I. Ini tiation Phase
1.1 Confer with local leaders
• The purpose is to create a consciousness among the power holders
(formal and informal) about the problem.
- Example:
Contact local and state agencies involved with water management
(quality and quantity).
124
-------
Community Norms and Institutional Factors
Socio-Cultural
Characteristics
Structural
Cultural
Socio-Psychologi cal
Characteristi cs
Personal
Characteristics
Personality
Traits
Envi ronmental
Resource
Base
Situational
Faci1itators/Constraints
Organizational
Individual
Adoption Behavior
(Innovativeness)
Figure 21. Factors affecting the adoptive behavior
of receiving unit.
125
-------
Contact irrigation district managers.
Contact district board members (start of public involvement).
Contact any local officials that may be involved with water
management (city officials, etc.).
1.2 Establish involvement among the leaders
• This will open access routes to various groups in the community.
It will also create a situation for the exploitation of public
participation strategies. It will begin to develop an interest,
if not commitment, among leaders to the program and to implement-
ation efforts.
- Examp1e:
Solicit the help of the contacted leaders to work with the
program; ask them for ideas about the existing program and how it
might change; ask them for ideas on how they would approach the
problem.
1.3 Seek to legitimate the program among the leaders.
- Example:
Get commitments among the contacted people to support various
programs; to be willing to spend some time working on these pro-
grams; to help organize committees to take over these programs
(increased commitment).
2. Organ i za t i on a1 Phase.
2.1 Create working committees to decide on the best implementation
strategy. This encompasses the setting of goals and of alternative
procedures to implement the solution into the community.
- Example:
Use the existing organizational linkages among irrigation dis-
tricts to serve as the committee. Also bring in board members,
city officials, and state officials. Other strategies that can
be developed are demonstration projects with extension, public
meetings, area interviews, individual farmer interviews, use of
existing service organizations, etc.
2.2 Establish a legal, financial, technical, and prestigious foundation*
for working committees.
- Example:
Bring in organizations, agencies, etc., that have authority to
institute changes in the water application arena. Look for
126
-------
funding sources. Have adequately trained personnel (e.g., SCS,
Extension Service, etc.) to perform the needed tasks. Include
opinion leaders on the committee.
2.3 Establish a public participation program.
• This program can involve public meetings, interviews, educational
programs, and other forms of mass communication to interest the
people and involve individuals. Planning should be a two-way
flow of Ideas. Incorporate needed individuals and organizations
into planning phase.
- Example:
Write articles in the newspapers; have committee members conduct
public hearings/meetings; have committee members go to farmers
(via opinion leaders) and interview them on the program; elicit
suggestions; set up an educational booth at fairs, work through
existing educational organizations like the Extension Service,
etc.
3. Operational Phase.
3.1 Administer the Program
- Example:
Have the committee set deadlines for specific action to be accom-
plished. Contact farms that are going to be worked on; contact
districts that will be involved with the program. Set up "sched-
ule of activity." Obtain needed resources and coordinate
personnel. Perform the specific operations. Emphasis must be
on integrated action by the valley as a whole.
3.2 Evaluation
Committee and farmers evaluate the program. The program is then
amplified, modified, or changed through continuous feedback.
I
- Example:
Obtain agreements as to range of options, priorities and feasible
courses of action.
The remarks made throughout this last section bring us back again to the
roots of the debate concerning the resistance for implementing irrigation
return flow control measures. Assuming that we have defined the right problem,
the appropriate approach and sensitivity to local conditions, then implement-
ation efforts become more feasible, given the credibility of the policy and the
broad consensus as to need for intervention. Otherwise, the absence of a
climate of cooperation, and disagreement, as to the nature and utility of
127
-------
proposed measures, would reinforce nascent feelings of mistrust towards
governmental regulation and would seriously hinder the ultimate usefulness
of a larger social policy concerning "cleaner water."
128
-------
REFERENCES
• 1972. A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972. U.S.G.P.O. Washington, D.C. January.
Bardach, Eugene. 1977. The Implementation Game: What Happens After A Bill
Becomes Law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1957. On Perceptual Readiness. Psychological Review 64
(2): 123-152.
Brunswick, E. 1952. The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1(10). Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
Colorado Water Congress. 1977. Statement on Permit Program for Irrigation
Return Flow and Section 208 of P.L. 92-500. Presented to U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental
Pollution, Fort Collins, Colorado. June 13.
Federal Register. 40 FR 54182; 37 FR 28290.
Hargrove, Erwin C. 1975- The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation
of Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Havelock, Ronald G. 1972. Knowledge Utilization and Dissemination: A
Bibliography. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research.
Havelock, Ronald G. 1973. Planning for Innovation: Through Dissemination
and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social
Research.
. 1976. Irrigation Journal, Vol. 26, No. 6. November-December.
Janis, Irving L. and Mann, Leon. 1977. Decision-Making: A Psychological
Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Jones, Gwyn E. 1967. "The Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Practices."
World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Abstracts 9(3):1-34.
National Technical Advisory Committee, FWPCA. 1968. Agricultural Uses
(pp. 111-178). In Water Quality Criteria. U.S.G.P.O. Washington,
D.C. 234 p.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildawsky, Aaron. 1973- Implementation. Berkeley,
California: U. of California Press.
129
-------
Q.uade, E. S. 1975- Analysis for Public Decisions. New York: American
Elsevier.
Rogers, Everett and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. 1971. Communication of Innova-
tions: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press.
Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1973. The Politics of Environmental Concern. New
York: Praeger.
Smith, Thomas B. 1973- The Policy Implementation Process. Policy Sciences
4: 197-209.
. 197^. Status of San Joaquin Drainage Problems. California Dept. of
Water Resources Bulletin No. 127-74. December.
130
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Copas, Thomas L. and Pennock, Herbert A. No date. Getting Research Findings
into Practice. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of
Engineer!ng.
Eaton, Joseph W. 1972. Institution Building and Development. Beverly Hills,
Ca.: Sage Publications.
Fllegal, Frederick C. and Kivlin, Joseph E. 1966. Attributes of Innovations
as Factors in Diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 72(3):235-248.
Gordon, Gerald, e_t a_L 197^- A Contingency Model for the Design of Problem-
Solving Research Programs: A Perspective on Diffusion Research. Health
and Society 52(2):185-220.
Gore, Peter H., et al. 1975- A Sociological Approach to the Problem of
Water Pollution. Growth and Change 6(1):17-Z2.
Nagel , Stuart S. 197^- "Incentives for Compliance with Environmental Law."
American Behavioral Scientist 17(5):690-710.
North Central Public Policy Education Committee. 1972. Who Will Control
U.S. Agriculture? Urbana-Champaign, 111.: College of Agricultural
Cooperation Extension Service, Special Publication 27.
Osgood, Charles E. and Tannenbaum, Percy H. 1955- The Principles of Congruity
in the Prediction of Attitude Change. The Psychological Review 62 (Jan.):
42-55.
Warner, Kenneth E. 1974. The Need for Some Innovative Concepts of Innova-
tion: An Examination of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations.
Policy Sciences 5 W :433-^51
i
Westman, Walter E. 1972. Some Basic Issues in Water Pollution Control
Legislation. American Scientist 60 (6):767~773-
Westman, Walter E. 1977. Problems in Implementing U.S. Water Quality
Goals. American Scientist 65 (March-Apri1):197-203-
Wolkinson, Kenneth. 1969. Special Agency Program Accomplishment and
Community Action Styles: The Case of Watershed Development. Rural
Sociology 3*» (0:29-42.
Zaltman, Gerland and Lin, Wan. 1971. On the Nature of Innovation. American
Behavioral Scientist Ik (5):651-673«
•\
131
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume I: Methodology __
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Evan C. Vlachos, Paul C. Huszar, George E. Radosevich,
Gaylord V. Skogerboe and Warren Trock
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R-803572
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 7^820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volume II: Yakima Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-174b
Volume III: Middle Rio Grande Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-171»c
Volume IV: Grand Valley Case Study. EPA-600/2-78-17*td
16. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study has been to develop an effective process for imple-
menting technical and institutional solutions to the problem of return flow pollution.
The process developed: a) defines the problem in terms of its legal, physical,
economic, and social parameters; b) identifies potential solutions in relation to
the parameters of the problem; c) assesses potential solutions for diverse situations;
d) specifies those solutions or groups of solutions which are the most effective in
reducing pollution and are implementable.
This process is conceptualized in Volume I of the study. The general results
of its application are further presented in three separate volumes concerning the
specific case studies of Yakima Valley (Washington), Middle Rio Grande Valley (New
Mexico and Texas), and Grand Valley (Colorado).
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Water law, water rights, irrigation,
irrigated land, water pollution, water
quality
Irrigation return flow,
-duty of water, water
allocation, water
pricing, socio-economic
factors, cultural
practices, water markets,
externalities
91A
91H
92 D
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport}'
Unclassi fied
21. NO. OR PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE"
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
132
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/1449 Region No. SHI
------- |