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

-------