&ER&
United States
Environmantal Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental R&§ssrc*< EPA-€Q0/2-78-174b
Laboratory August 1978
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors
in Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control
Volume II
Yakima Valley
Case Study
-------
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-600/2-78-17^b
August 1978
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
IN IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume II: Yakima Valley Case Study
by
Paul C. Huszar
George E. Radosevich
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Warren L. Trock
Evan C. Vlachos
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Grant No. R-803572
Project Officer
James P. Law, Jr.
Source,1 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 necessarily 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) investi-
gate 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 technologies for irrigation return flows; d) develop and demon-
strate 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 technologies 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 provide adequate protection for the American public.
o&V^
William C. Galegar "
Di rector
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
Mi
-------
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 identifi-
cation 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 propositions involved in the identi-
fication, assessment and evaluation of potential solutions concerning
irrigation return flow.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research project has been to develop an effective pro-
cess for implementing technical and institutional solutions to the problem of
irrigation return flow pollution. This report contains the findings of a case
study of the Yakima Valley, Washington. The findings are reported according
to the proposed process, namely: a) defining the problem in terms of its
physical, legal, economic, and social parameters; b) identifying potential
solutions in relation to the key parameters of the problem; c) assessing the
range of potential solutions for the specific area of concern; and d) speci-
fying those solutions or groups of solutions which are most effective in
reducing pollution and are implementable.
The basic conclusions of the report are that: a) irrigation methods used
in many parts of the Valley are inappropriate to the topography and soils,
thus causing return flow pollution; b) neither state nor federal water qual-
ity regulations have had a significant impact on the pollution problem;
c) a major cause of the problem is the underpricing of irrigation water
caused by the absence of economic markets for its allocation; d) the first
step in solving the problem is the creation of an economic market to allocate
irrigation water; e) perception and demonstration of the problem are vital for
any efforts to implement any solutions; and f) holistic thinking by farmers
regarding water in the Valley and individual acknowledgment of contributions
to the problem are necessary to its solution.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 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 \k, 1977, and work was completed as of May 4, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword i i i
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 The Yakima River System 12
2 Average precipitation and temperature by months 16
3 Critical organizations involved with irrigation
return flow problems 21
4 Sources of pollutants in the Yakima River:
Values in percent--values for late August 46
5 Variations in nitrate, orthophosphate and chlorophyll A
in the Yakima River in August 1973 47
6 Present irrigation/pollution relation. . ; 54
7 Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market 57
8 Exchange, externalities and closing feedback loops 69
9 Marginal benefits and costs of clean water 70
10 Layout of the 6 hectare trickle irrigation system showing
various components of the distribution network 86
11 Irrigation scheduling components 89
12 Legal allocation of water 95
13 Water rental market 97
14 Supply and demand for water right holders 98
15 Supply and demand for right and nonright holders 99
16 Per acre sediment loss 101 ,
17 Irrigated acreage 102
18 Total sediment losses , 103
19 Yakima River turbidity, 1974 Irrigation season 104
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Reservoirs Having a Total Capacity of 5,000 Acre-
Feet or More, Yakfma Valley 11
2 Mean Annual Flow Data for the Yakima Basin 14
3 Water Quality Standards, State of Washington 38
4 Yakima River Water Quality at Selected Stations
For Average Flow Conditfons 39
5 Comparison of Major Drains ?n Yakima Basin-
Average Values for 1974 Irrigation Season 42
6 Ground Water Quality in the Yakima Basin 43
7 Nutrient Loads in the Yakima Basin 45
8 Generalized Sediment Yield by Cover and
Land Use 48
9 Costs of Alternative Sprinkler Irrigation Systems 82
10 Initial Investment Cost Analysis for Trickle
Irrigation of an Orchard Crop on a 3-7 by 5-5 Meter Spacing . . 87
11 Results of Different Water Prices 94
12 Summary Evaluation of Measures to Improve
Irrigation Return Flow Quality 110
IX
-------
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 Re-
search 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 report.
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 inter-
views and in supplying reports and data.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The general goal of this research project has been the development of a
basis leading to an effective process for implementing technical and institu-
tional solutions to the problem of irrigation return flow pollution. The
present report, based on a case study analysis of Yakima Valley, Washington,
contains specific findings per the proposed process, namely: a) defining the
problem in its physical, legal, economic, and social parameters; b) ident-
ifying potential solutions in relation to key parameters of the problem;
c) assessing the range of potential solutions for the specific area of concern;
and d) specifying those solutions or groups of solutions which are most effec-
tive in reducing pollution and are implementable.
As stated in the main report, the approach and emphasis of the overall
project, and of all case studies as well, does not rest exclusively on the
determination of an "appropriate solution" for the problem of return flow,
although the last is a central point in communicating effectively the spirit
of PL 92-500. The concern throughout begins with the process of arriving at
appropriate solutions, In assessing in an interdisciplinary manner, and in
outlining the steps for an eventual process of implementation of whatever may
be the agreed-upon "solution" or program.
Finally, it should be pointed out that although autonomous, each case
study must be also related to the main report so that specific findings that
follow can be interpreted in the context of more general principles concern-
ing efforts for implementation.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
Yakima Valley contains a total area of 15,850 square kilometers (km)
(6,120 sq. mi.) and occupies the south-central part of the State of Washing-
ton. About three-fourths of the Valley is in the Columbia Basin physiograph-
ic, province, with the remainder in the Cascade Range. The Cascade Range gen-
erally bounds the Valley to the west, with the Wenatchee Mountains forming
the northern boundary, and Rattlesnake Hills to the east and Horse Heaven Hills
to the south separating the Valley from the Columbia Valley.
The Yakima River and its tributaries drain the Valley. The river heads
near the crest of the Cascade Range northeast of Mount; Rainier and flows for
216 miles in a generally southeasterly direction to Its confluence with the
Columbia River near Richland. It Is the largest single river system located
entirely within the State of Washington. Major tributaries include the
-------
Naches, Cle Elum, Kachess, and Teenaway Rivers. The total annual flow leav-
ing the Valley under natural conditions would be approximately 4,420 million
cubic meters (3,580,000 acre-feet). The actual flow is 2,890 million cubic
meters (2,340,000 acre-feet). The average annual irrigation diversions with-
in the basin are 2,920 million cubic meters (2,365,000 acre-feet) of which
1,410 million cubic meters (1,140,000 acre-feet) are consumed and 120 million
cubic meters (100,000 acre-feet) are diverted from the basin.
The climate varies from desert conditions in the lower Valley to a moist
alpine type in the higher mountains. The irrigated area of the upper Valley
receives from 250 to 380 millimeters (mm) (10 to 15 inches) of precipitation
per year, while the lower Valley receives less than 250 mm (10 inches).
Agriculture is the primary economic activity in the Valley. The City of
Yakima is a center for processing of both fruit and vegetable crops grown
both in the Valley in adjacent valleys. The area is the largest producer of
agricultural commodities in the State of Washington. The market value at the
farm of all agricultural products sold in the Yakima Valley exceeds $200
million annually, or an average of $600 per acre. This is more than one-
fifth of the on-farm value of all agricultural production in Washington.
Moreover, Yakima County ranks first among counties in the Nation in the pro-
duction of apples, hops and mint.
Population densities are high in the valleys and low in the surrounding
rangelands. The present population is slightly in excess of the 1965 figure
of 185,500 and is centered in a series of towns along the Yakima River.
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION
The first known attempt at irrigated agriculture in the Valley was made
in 1853 at the Ahtanum Mission near Tampico (USDA, 1974). In 18,67, farmers
were diverting water from the Naches River and by 1870 there were 400 hec-
tares (ha) (1,000 acres) under irrigation in the Yakima Valley. The early
systems were privately constructed and served easily accessible lands along
the main stem of the Yakima River and the lower portions of the major tribu-
taries.
During 1886-88, the Northern Pacific Railroad's transcontinental line
reached the area and extended over the Cascades to Puget Sound. As it had
been granted a considerable land area in the Valley, the Railroad and other
sources of private capital undertook large investments in irrigation in order
to attract settlers. The Sunnyside Canal was started in 1890 to divert water
from the Yakima River and by 1892 forty-two miles of canal were completed.
In 1900 management was taken over by the Washington Irrigation Company. In
the meantime, several other canals were constructed by private capital so
that by 1900 the Yakima Valley was the most extensively irrigated area in
Washington, with 27,000 ha (67,000 acres). This had expanded to 50,000 ha
(125,000 acres) by 1905 when irrigation by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Office of Indian Affairs began.
-------
The Yakima Valley is now one of the most extensively Irrigated areas In
the United States, having six-storage dams, five diversion dams, two hydro-
electric plants, six major governmental irrigation projects, plus numerous
small private irrigation systems and districts. The total area served by
irrigation facilities in the Valley is approximately 20^,000 ha (505,000
acres), of which 168,000 ha (416,000 acres) are served by governmental pro-
jects. Water for the remaining irrigable land is supplied through Warren Act
contracts and by individuals diverting from small streams. About 7,300 ha
(18,000 acres) are irrigated by ground water.
Approximately 80 percent of the irrigated area of the Valley is watered
by furrow or flood irrigation methods. The remainder is sprinkler irrigated
except for a few hundred acres of trickle irrigation. There is currently a
marked trend towards sprinkler systems.
The Water Quality Problem
With the advent of irrigation in the Valley, the quality of water in the
Yakima River and its tributaries has declined. Some of the degradation is
directly due to irrigation return flows, while further deterioration is asso-
ciated with fruit processing plants and other agricultural and industrial
enterprises attracted to the Valley by the existence of a strong irrigated
agriculture base.
In the upper reaches of the Valley, water quality is virtually unim-
paired. Although mineralization increases more than fourfold in going from
the headwaters to the mouth, the water still remains in the low salinity
class and is suitable for reuse as irrigation water. The main effect of
irrigation activities is high concentrations of suspended sediment, phosphates
and nitrates (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, 1971, Appendix XII).
Suspended solids in return flows settle and interfere with drain design
flow capacity and cause wear of pumps and sprinklers. Where discharged to
the river, they settle behind diversion structures and require periodic re-
moval. Associated with the sediment is attached phosphate which frequently
reaches levels in the lower river above the potential algal bloom ITmtting
concentration. Similarly, nitrogen levels, which are a consequence of the
percolation of irrigation water applied in excess of crop needs, greatly
exceed the potential algal bloom limiting concentrations in the lower river.
Heavy growths of plankton and higher forms of aquatic life are consequently
found in the river from Wilson Creek, a few miles below Ellensburg, to the
mouth. The photosynthesis and respirational activities of these organisms
cause a wide diurnal fluctuation in several water quality parameters includ-
ing dissolved oxygen, pH and alkalinity (CH2M/Hill, 1975).
Organization of the Report
The report is organized in a manner that both concentrates at key find-
ings of the research and follows the general process developed by the inter-
disciplinary team for building the basis for implementing measures to improve
irrigation return flow quality.
-------
Section 2 summarizes the major findings and conclusions of the study,
while Section 3 contains a series of recommendations concerning solutions
and approaches per the problem in the Valley. Section k, then, begins in
detail the description of the physical, economic, legal, and social charac-
teristics of Yakima Valley. Following the outlining of the area, Section 5
specifies the context within which the problem of Irrigation return flow
quality exists. The specific causes of this problem (again In terms of phy-
sical, economic and social parameters) are discussed In detail in Section 6.
The two ensuing Sections, 7 and 8, identify first a wide range of potential
solutions and, then, assess solutions against criteria of appropriateness,
acceptability and feasibility.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
As stated in the main report, the control of water quality raises two
basic issues, namely incentives and enforcement. At the same time, irriga-
tion return flow is seen as a non-point source of pollution whose control has
been ineffective due to the complexity surrounding this situation. In this
regard, the present study concentrated on two major topics: first, in de-
scribing the parameters of the problem in the Valley; and, second, in expli-
cating a process of assessing solutions leading towards implementation efforts,
As far as the causes of the problem are concerned, following a detailed
description of the area, a series of causative factors were identified in-
cluding 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 whole host of related
conditions contributing to water quality problems of return flow.
The assessment process included the generation of a wide range of poten-
tial solutions; the evaluation of such solutions by the research team, water
administrators and water users; and, the identification of technically, eco-
nomically, legally, and socially feasible solutions. At the end of such an
assessment process, the research team arrived at a series of both specific as
well as overall findings regarding irrigation return flow quality control.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS (potential causes and solutions to the problem)
1. The irrigation methods used in many parts of the Valley are inappro-
priate in relation to the topography and soils. The high velocity furrow
streams erode large quantities of sediment which are ultimately moved to the
drainage ways and the river. The most effective controls would be provided
by.a change in irrigation methods (e.g., to sprinkler and trickle irrigation).
2. Overapplication of irrigation water results in excessive surface
runoff and subsurface drainage, with consequent removal of sediment and
adsorbed phosphates in the first case, and nitrates and other dissolved salts
in the second case, to the river. Better utilization of the water could be
achieved by improving existing irrigation methods and by providing a higher
level of management.
3. The inappropriate use of fertilizer in conjunction with the over-
application of water has caused nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the river
-------
to increase to unacceptable levels. Improved fertilizer management practices
are required to effect a change in the quantities, timing and placement of
fertilizers.
4. Washington has made the transition to government jurisdiction over
water resources allocation, distribution and administration by making the
appropriation doctrine the exclusive system of water allocation for surface
water in 1917 and ground waters in
5. Washington had adopted an integrated approach to water quantity and
quality administration of the law in 1971- The Department of Ecology (DOE)
has jurisdiction over both characteristics of water in the Office of Water
Programs.
6. While the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES)
program has been accepted, no regulations for permitting irrigation return
flow have been adopted.
7. No state low-interest loan program is available to individual water
users for water quality control improvements on the farm.
8. In the Yakima Valley, the water rights are held by the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation under various decrees with three irrigation districts, the
primary distributors to water users.
9. Transfer of water within districts is constrained and not widely
practiced between districts.
10. Irrigation districts under Washington law have been reluctant to
assume responsibility for water quality as well as quantity control, but since
the Water Resource Act of 1971, it may be strongly asserted since they have
the responsibility.
11. The potential threat, to the water supply from the reserved water
doctrine on the adjacent Indian Reservation is real and causes great concern
in the Valley.
12. The absence of economic markets to allocate irrigation water causes
water to be underpriced.
13. The underpricing of water results in Its excessive use relative to
other inputs, such as labor and capital, and contributes to irrigation return
flow pollution.
14. Moreover, farmers have an economic profit motive to avoid costs
associated with controlling return flow pollution, thus contributing to the
problem.
15. Creating an economic market for allocating irrigation water repre*-
sents the first step in solving the problem.
-------
16. Water pollution remaining after a market is created could be dealt
with by extra-market mechanisms such as taxes and subsidies.
17- Perception and demonstration of the problem of return flow is vital
for any efforts to implement the provisions of PL 92-500.
18. A common definition of intolerable degradation would be part of the
effort of showing how present irrigation practices contribute to the problem.
19- There Is a pervasive non-holistic thinking by farmers regarding
water in the Valley and absence of regional identifications with a widespread
belief that "others" are to blame for whatever problem may exist with regard
to water quality.
20. Finally, there are non-effective 1 inkages between farmers and admin-
istrators and lack of more active participation in district affairs.
OVERALL FINDINGS
In terms of more general findings and of integrative 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 voluntarily assuming water
quality management) unless an explicit legal and/or economic incentive or
disincentive mix can be established.
2. In this regard, the circumstances in the Valley point out that there
are actually incentives for maintaining the same practices that contribute 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, a£ particularly pertinent, or as urgent and,
thus, questions are raised as to the credibility of immediate attention and
solutions to a not well-defined pr accepted problem.
4. The presence of a pilot project in the area CSulphur Creek) was
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
specific 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, however, there has been an increased
awareness as to the need to do something which, if nothing else, has brought
about Increased Interagency cooperation.
5. In the case of Yakima, the State also has taken an active role,
providing better coordination and involvement. This Is derived from the
positive attitude of DOE as well as from the fact that there seems to be a
-------
public recognition by all appropriate author!tes of the problem which ul-
timately 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 techno-
logical measures. Throughout this study, as well as throughout the main
report, the key problem remains the implementabi1ity of solutions, particu-
larly through the acceptance of a combination of institutional mechanisms in
the context of appropriate technological solutions.
8
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the approach taken by the study and juxtaposition between de-
scribing potential solutions, arriving at appropriate solutions, and building
the basis for acceptable solutions, recommendations also reflect the compat-
ibility between appropriate and feasible strategies in implementation efforts.
More specifically, the following recommendations expand the thrust of the
study and supplement key provisions of the main report.
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 the tracking of the ultimate conditions that result to water degrada-
tion, 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. In terms of implementabi1ity, the most acceptable methods are those
for which we have the most control. In this respect, inappropriate solutions
are those that are superimposed on the system and are not part of the local
control. Thus, local solutions are needed which maximize implementabi1ity and
are sensitive to the problem at hand, and which may also require the creation
of new institutions. In the case of the Yakima Valley, there is need for some
new overall unit that would control irrigation in the Valley on a valley-wide
basis. However, whenever possible, existing institutional bodies should be
utilized rather than superimposing artificially conceived organizations.
k. 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
should be part of a community-wide effort and of a total involvement rather
than part of handed-down or dictated solutions.
5. The demonstration project currently under operation in the Valley
should be continued and expanded in order to incorporate all the technological
solutions identified in the main text. At the same time, the tractabMity of
-------
the problem would be enhanced by the introduction of such additional consider-
ations as new irrigation methods, fertilizer management, irrigation management,
etc. Thus, it is equally important to expand such demonstration projects in
order to incorporate institutional "solutions" on a basin-wide basis and,
therefore, attack the problem through a more holistic approach rather than
only through technological measures. However, while the demonstration pro-
ject 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 effect-
iveness as a demonstration project.
6. Washington appears to have a strong legislative basis for incorporat-
ing water quality as a specific element of a water right and should exercise
this power on all new, transferred or extended rights.
7. An administrative decision should be tested to require a higher
degree of public accountability by the irrigation districts in water quantity
and quality management.
8. The Bureau of Reclamation, as holder of water rights for delivery of
water under contract to the irrigation districts, should negotiate a revised
contract which acknowledges degradation to water quality from agricultural
water use, set out criteria for use, and provide mechanisms (legal, economic,
physical) to facilitate improved use, i.e.:
a. develop a basin water management plan that shows optimum use
under quality/quantity conditions and needs;
b. remove transfer restrictions between districts; and
c. allow farmers to manipulate, trade or sell extra quantities of
their water within the basin under delivery system constraints.
9. DOE should adopt criteria for beneficial use and expand their
revolving fund program for water programs to include the water quality
control objective.
10. Finally, it should be pointed out that as it happens with many
other projects, solutions tend to be based on outside interventions quite
often creating more complexity rather than simplifying the conditions of
operation. It is recommended, therefore, that the approach towards Imple-
mentation should be based on a determination 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 utilizes both motivational rein-
forcement .(incentives) and administrative enforcement.
TO
-------
SECTION 4
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Hydrologic Basin
The Yakima River system drains an area of approximately 16,850 kilomet-
ers (km) in central Washington (Figure 1), extending from the eastern slope
of the Cascade Mountains through the lower plateau and bottom lands in a
southeasterly direction to the Columbia River. In the headwaters area, three
large glacial lakes—Keechelus, Kachess and Cle Elum—have been dammed to form
storage reservoirs to augment the river flow in late summer. Additional dams
have been constructed on other tributaries for the same purpose, as shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1 . RESERVOIRS HAVING A TOTAL CAPACITY OF
5,000 ACRE-FEET OR MORE. YAKIMA VALLEY
Name
Bumping Lake
Cle Elum Lake
Clear Creek Lake
Kachess Lake
Keechelus Lake
Rimrock Lake
TOTALS
Stream
Bumping River
Cle Elum River
N.F. Tieton River
Kachess River
Yakima River
Tieton River
I
Total
Storage
(ac.-ft.)
33,7002
436,900
5,300
239,000
157,800
198,000
1,070,700
Act i ve
Storage
(ac.-ft.)
33,700
436,900
5,300
239,000
157,800
198,000
1,070,700
Area
(acres)
1,310
4,800
265
4,525
2,526
2,528
15,954
Use1
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
1 R=Recreation; l=lrrigation.
2 English to metric conversion factor: 1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares.
SOURCE: Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study, 1970.
In its 350 km flow to the Columbia, the river traverses three structural
basins having worn through two mountain ridges to form steep-walled canyons.
The upper basin is largely forested with extensive irrigation development on
the Valley floor. From the upper basin, the river flows through 40 km of
11
-------
r ,
•\A ''Ss, - '
.rVv.- a-«"
•*V
V:
', ^
/ '/
:'t'
. A.
*-i:,
h^. *-••
*•*.
fc^jaK^/ I
f -^-^i ~~.. "/
H'.^/.'' -^^
,> •••' f/^~r -"- - - -
rV
^
"*>
r ^ -••-«» l^'-N. -
» '^^ ^ j "™ «'—~^T ~"1 'V- *•''
ix--^--< -•- - - u: ~^jfe|v. -
^- ^- ., ! ^--4^"^.
"" <"' 1-v~~-- j£&''''>
I -:: 'i'^^SCr^
""'^ •>--'--"- './:r':!
ElK
i*«
W-J
Figure 1. The Yakima River system.
12
-------
canyon into the middle basin, which contains a number of irrigation districts.
In this middle basin, the Yakima River is joined by its principal tributary,
the Naches River. Leaving the middle basin, the river passes through Union
Gap and into the lower basin which is also extensively irrigated.
The principal tributaries to the Yakima River progressing downstream are
the Kachess, Cle Elum, Teanaway, and Naches Rivers, plus the Swauk, Wilson,
Manastash, Wenas, Ahtanum, Wide Hollow, Toppenish, and Satus Creeks. The
Naches River is the largest tributary. The mean annual flow data for the
main stream and major tributaries and drains are shown in Table 2.
Seven aquifer units have been delineated in the Yakima Valley on the
State Geologic Map. The three most important are the alluvial deposits, the
Ellensburg Formation and the basalt of the Columbia River Group. Moderate to
moderately large yields can be obtained from wells in any one of the three
units at favorable locations, and there has been considerable development and
utilization of ground water from each. High yields are also available at many
other locations. The other aquifer units have not been extensively tested.
The chemical quality of the ground water is generally good to excellent for
most uses (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission,1970, Appendix V).
Topography and Soils
Elevations within the Yakima Basin range from 2,408 meters (7,899 feet)
at Mount Daniel in the Cascade Range, to 104 meters (3**0 feet) above sea level
at the point of discharge to the Columbia River. The Valley bottoms, the
adjoining terraces and the surrounding gentle slopes contain the basin's agri-
cultural land. Irrigated lands range in elevation from a low of 120 meters
(400 feet) in the Kennewick District to a high of 670 meters (2,200 feet) in
the Kittitas District. In the higher regions of the north and west of the
basin, the soils are chiefly shallow to deep and broken by outcrops of the
underlying rock. The general landscape is dissected by canyons, ravines and
stream courses and the relief for the most part is steep to very steep and
unfavorable for cultivation.
During the glacial time, the canyons and deeper basins were flooded when
the main river system was dammed. Thick deposits of silty to sandy sediments
of glacial origin accumulated in ,the lake. After the dam broke and the
streams were again free to cut their channels to former depths, much of the
lake sediment was eroded. Remnants still remain throughout the area.
Since the disappearance of the lake, windblown materials have blanketed
most of the area. Some of the material is of local origin, while other mater-
ial has been transported from outside the subregion. Much of the soil, espec-
ially in the upland areas, has developed from the windblown mantle. This has
left predominant soils of medium textured sandy loams and silty loams to con-
siderable depth, usually underlain with gravel or decomposed basalt.
Climate
The climate of the basin is essentially continental in character, al-
though tempered by the prevailing westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean.
13
-------
TABLE 2. MEAN ANNUAL FLOW DATA FOR THE YAKIMA BASIN*
Main Stem Drainage
Tributaries Area
Canals Sq, UN
Yak i ma River near Martin
Kachess River near Easton
Kittitas Canal
Cle El urn River near Roslyn
Ungaged-1
Yakima River at Cle El urn
Teanaway River below Forks
Swauk Creek near Cle El urn
Naneum Creek near Ellensburg
Manastash Creek near Ellensburg
Ungaged-2
Yakima River at Umtanum
Roza Canal
Bumping River near Nile
American River near Ntle
Tieton River at Tieton Dam
Tieton, Wapatox, SelaK Canals
and City of Yakima
Ungaged-3
NacKes River below Tieton River
Wapatox Powerhouse Return
Roza Powerhouse Return
Ungaged-4
Yakima Rtver above Ahtanum Creek
Ahtanum Creek at Union Gap
Sunnysfde Canal
.- Wapato Canal
Ungaged
Yaktma Rtver at Parker
Ungaged-5
Yaktma Rtver at Matton
Chandler Canal
Kennewick Canal
Ungaged-6
Yakiroa River at Ktona
55
64
203
173
495
172
88
70
76
693
1,594
--
71
79
187
604
941
--
944
3,479
173
--
— ^
8
3.66Q
J,699
5,359
--
256
5,635
Oct.
254
111
C225)
401
240
781
65
9
17
12
355
1,239
116
77
221
(3431
352
423
300
1,799
23
(4351
C3Q41
Nov.
164
50
0
260
344
181
125
33
22
24
390
1,412
203
136
178
(3031
480
667
320
2,184
31
0
071
Dec.
92
74
0
197
507
870
160
26
23
19
389
1,487
174
160
176
(366)
709
853
370
2,996
45
0
(231
Jan.
80
39
Q
64
418
601
265
37
23
24
201
1,151
70
117
144
(3431
624
612
340
2,930
86
0
(19)
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS - Cubic Feet/Second
Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul.
18
48
0
89
398
553
360
45
34
24
215
1,231
103
121
167
(410)
707
688
370
3,599
133
0
09)
29
28
0
59
498
614
475
187
38
102
267
1,683
127
145
58
(480)
892
742
450
3,723
138
(155)
077)
50
48
(215)
257
1,025
1,165
620
189
85
135
777
2,971
134
350
87
(452)
1,488
1,607
370
5,315
130
(829)
(1,234)
489
314
(790)
1,696
1,241
2,950
1,110
122
198
175
69
4,624
755
740
764
(797)
2,000
3,462
400
7,304
212
0,190)
(1 ,882)
771
498
(935)
2,382
650
3,366
530
33
144
113
168
4,354
840
661
1,170
(968)
1,356
3,064
430
6,746
184
(1 ,254)
(1,944)
744
694
0,130)
2,269
235
2,812
130
7
45
34
48
3,076
535
303
1,200
(977)
648
1,709
470
3,976
37
(1,260)
0,913)
Aug.
747
943
(1,115)
2,295
156
3,026
35
3
24
15
208
3,311
346
92
1,150
(982)
469
1,075
470
3,212
18
(1,230)
0,758)
Sep.
643
720
(835)
1,401
170
2,099
30
3
19
13
315
2,479
192
58
872
(906)
490
706
450
2,731
23
(1,010)
0,364)
Annual
Ac re- Feet
246,000
202,000
(320,000)
686,000
372,000
1 ,186,000
235,000
44,000
41 ,000
-44,000
200,000
1,750,000
217,000
179,000
358,000
(445,000)
632,000
941 ,000
285,000
2,830,000
64,000
(450,000)
(652,000)
NEGLIGIBLE
1,083
691
1,774
(36)
373
2,051
2,138
529
2,727
0
407
3,134
3,018
20
3,038
0
495
3,533
2,997
75
2,922
0
44
2,966
3,713
303
3,410
0
66
3,344
3,529
101
3,630
(34)
89
3,685
3,382
365
3,747
(182)
13
3,552
4,444
1,525
5,969
(262)
5
5,712
3,732
1,920
5,652
(276)
33
5.409
840
1,014
1,854
(277)
334
1,911
424
1,065
1,489
(271)
366
1,584
380
1,435
1,815
(222)
401
1,994
1,791,000
504,000
2,295,000
(99,000)
149,000
2,345,000
Source; Ch2M, "Characterization of Present Water quality Condi tion"(January 1974).
complete records. Where records covering shorter periods were available, the
,<».»,..- d wltn adjacent stream flow records. In addition, some data on long-term «'-
werrtak^from^hrCo^irNorth'^PaclfirRegion Comprehensive Framework Study.
Conversion Factor: 1 square mile - 2.590 sq. km.
1 cubic foot per second - 0.02832 cubic meters per second.
1 acre-foot == 1,234 cubic meters.
-------
Differences In altitude result In a wide range of precipitation throughout
the basin, averaging 2,780 millimeters (mm) annually at Snoqualmie Pass in the
headwaters area and 183 mm annually at Yakima in the arid to semi-arid farming
region. Normally, about three-quarters of the precipitation falls in the non-
irrigation season.
Temperatures also vary according to elevation, averaging 5.5°C at
Snoqualmie Pass in the upper basin to 10°C at Yakima in the lower irrigated
valley. Minimum temperatures ranging from -25° to -35°C have been recorded,
with minimums of -15° to -25°C recorded nearly every winter. Maximum temp-
eratures are recorded a few times nearly every summer, with an extreme of
46°C recorded in the lower valley. The average frost-free period ranges
from 106 days at Cle Elum to Mk days at Wapato. This long growing season
and the high daily summer temperatures, abundant sunshine and long daylight
favor rapid plant growth as long as moisture is supplied by irrigation.
The temporal distribution of average precipitation and temperature at
Yakima and Ellensburg is shown in Figure 2. The distribution is similar
throughout the irrigated area of the Valley.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
General Composition
The economy of the Yakima River Basin is largely based on the highly
productive irrigated lands. The area's agriculture is varied, with a high
proportion of acreage in fruit, vegetables and specialty crops such as hops
and mint. There is a large development of agricultural marketing and proces-
sing industries based on these crops. The non-farm population of the area,
however, is growing rapidly. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries were once
the largest employers but In 1970 services became the largest, with trade
ranking second and agriculture ranking third in total employment. Some seg-
ments of the agricultural industry are being mechanized, displacing many
workers, while shortening the work season for others.
The seasonal nature of farm production leads to a pronounced fluctuation
in the monthly employment rate with a peak occurring during the harvest months
of October and November. Following harvest, as many as ten thousand persons
are unemployed. Migrant workers and their families have historically filled
these seasonal labor demands. More recently, many of the migrant families
have established homes and live in the Yakima Valley all year. This devel-
opment eventually adds to the local problem of unemployment as well as to
the welfare load in the area. The median family income in the area is be-
tween $8,000 and $9,000 per year, yet the 1970 census shows that there were
over 15,000 people earning less than $5,000 per year in the project area.
(Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, 1972).
Agricultural Production
The Yakima River Basin continues to be the largest producer of agricul-
tural commodities in the State of Washington. The market value at the farm
15
-------
Average
Precipitation
-5
E
E
c
o
o
0)
J FMAMJ JASON D
Average
Precipitation
E
E
o
o
«•
Q.
JFMAMJJASOND
Conversion Factors -
Temperature
Precipitation
- °C - 5/3
- °F = 3/5
- 1 inch = 24.5 mm
°F -32
°C +32
Figure 2. Average precipitation and temperature by months.
16
-------
gate of all agricultural products sold in the Yakima River Basin is more than
$180,000,000 annually. This is more than one-fifth of the on-farm value of
all agricultural commodities produced in Washington in 1969. Yakima County
ranks first among the counties of the nation in production of apples, hops
and mint.
The farm sector of the Yakima Basin generates additional economic activi-
ty within local trade areas. It has been estimated that Yakima County has
three job opportunities for each 25 acres of irrigated land. One of these
jobs is on the farm, one in agricultural and service industries and another
in government. Thus, the economic influence of agricultural production
stretches beyond the local trade areas to many other parts of the State and
Nation. A study by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State
University, found that for every $100 of sales at the farm gate in irrigated
areas of Washington, half is spent for purchases from non-farm industries
(Yakima-Kittitas Resource Conservation and Development Project, December 1974).
Finally, some of the value added is retained by the farm family and hired
workers and enters the economic stream as personal living expenditures.
Washington farmers sell most of their products to non-farm industries
within the State. These industries process, store, finance, and market these
products and thereby add to their value. According to the above study, farm
sales of $180,000,000 will generate a value added of about $400,000,000 within
the State of Washington before they are consumed or leave the State. Besides
the fifty percent of their products sold within the State, Washington farmers
also sell products valued at approximately $53,000,000 to foreign countries,
$27,000,000 to the rest of the United States, and about $15,000,000 directly
to consumers. Without any doubt, a vigorous economy characterizes the life
of the region.
The Role of Irrigation
Although there are over 30,000 ha (75,000 acres) of dryland being farmed
within the Yakima Valley, production of these acres is hardly significant.
Irrigation water is the lifeblood which supports the great majority of the
agricultural economy. Water is delivered to the farmers by one of the 25
irrigation districts within the Yakima Valley. The allotments to the indi-
vidual farmers vary among the districts ranging from about 2,223 mm per hec-
tare (3 acre-feet per acre) per year, to about 3,705 mm per hectare (5 acre-
feet per acre). Although the method of water pricing varies -somewhat within
the Valley, most farmers receive water according to the total acreage to be
irrigated. The charges for this allotment vary from $27-18 to $29.65 a hec-
tare ($11 to $12 an acre), up to about $39.54 or $42.01 per hectare ($16 or
$17 per acre) irrigated. In this respect, there is little incentive for an
individual farmer to use any less than his full allotment. In the long run,
such a situation produces a counterintuitive culture and hinders efficient
allocation of precious resources.
17
-------
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Human Ecology
The Yaklma Valley is essentially rural in nature, although rapidly chang-
ing in more recent years. It incorporates the counties of Kittitas, Yakima
and Benton. The general population characteristics show that the median years
of educationare approximately 12.2 years; the unemployment rate is approxi-
mately 8 percent for men and 10 percent for women; the percentage of farmers
or farm managers in the Valley runs from 2.1 percent in Benton to 5-8 percent
in Yakima; the median income runs from $8,062 in Yakima to $10,656 in Benton;
and the per capita income generally falls in the range of $2,553 In Yakima to
$3,204 in Benton (for more detailed information, see additional tables in
Appendix A). There is also some urban growth in the Valley with the number of
rural non-farm residents also increasing. Finally, the majority of the farm
land is owned by independent, family-size farm operations.
These are some of the basic critical parameters and the broad social con-
text within which social interaction is taking place and where innovations as
well as implementation efforts are to be introduced. In this context, a de-
scription of social characteristics entails those aspects of the total envi-
ronment that are deemed important or crucial for possible implementation
efforts of an innovative program aimed at improving irrigation return flow
quality. As an approach, therefore, the search for critical variables in-
cludes forces of urbanization and patterns of growth In the Valley, followed
by a critical look at three conditions within the Valley: 1) the composition
of the rural farm and rural non-farm population; 2) the type of farm organiza-
tion; and 3) a description of the farm operation. From such dimensions one
can trace a better picture of the diverse social situations that produce the
network of facilitating or constraining conditions in any implementation
effort.
The urban population within the Valley ranges from 51.2 percent of the
population in Yakima County to 65.8 percent in Benton County. There are no
urbanized areas, i.e., a central city of 50,000 or more surrounded by a closely
settled territory; but there exists a number of smaller cities and towns rang-
ing from 45,588 (Yakima) to 2,841 (Wapato). The fastest growing areas in the
Valley are Richland and Ellensburg. In the rural sector (towns of less than
2,500 people and the hinterland), approximately 88 percent of the people live
in places with populations less than 1,000. Towns with populations of 1,000
to 2,500 for the most part are losing people. Generally, the growth rate of
the Valley is small with Ellensburg being the exception. Overall, the Yakima
Valley is supporting a fairly stable population, with three further conditions
being key determinants to the quest of how innovations may be accepted or re-
jected or implementation efforts undertaken, namely: a) characteristics of
the rural population; b) type of farm organization; arid c) farm operation.
The first condition concerns the composition and characteristics of the
rural non-farm and the rural farm populations. Rural farm is defined by the
census as residents living on a place of ten acres (4.05 hectares) or more
from which sales of farm products of the preceding calendar year amount to
$50 or more, or a place less than ten acres (4.05 hectares) from which sales
18
-------
of farm products of the preceding calendar year amount to $250 or more. In
short, this definition distinguishes a population who utilizes the farm land
in a different manner.
This rural non-farm population has a slightly lower level of formal edu-
cation than the rural farm population~12.03 and 12.33 years, respectively;
it has a similar median income, but a significantly lower per capita income
(see further, Appendix A). Benton County has the highest median income for
both the rural farm and the rural non-farm people, but the lowest ranked
county for the rural farm median income is Yakima, while it is Kittitas for
the rural non-farm people. Added to this diversity is a mixture of increase,
decrease and stability in the three counties of the Valley, and, therefore,
an interesting mix of individuals who by the nature of their relationship to
the land will perceive irrigation and irrigation-related problems differently.
A second condition in the social structure of the Valley relates to the
type of farm organization (Appendix A). The most prevalent form of management
of a farm unit is the independent or family-farm organization. This includes
not only farm units themselves, but also the acreage under control. Partner-
ships are second in the number of units but corporate farms are second with
regard to the acreage managed. Indeed, Yakima County has the largest concen-
tration of corporate farms in the Valley.
Another aspect of the farm organization is the tenure system of the
operator. Tenure of the operator has been defined by the census in three
ways: 1) full owners—who operate only land they own; 2) part owners—who
operate land they own and also land they rent from others; and 3) tenants—
who operate land they rent from others, or work on shares for others. The
greatest percentage of tenured operators are the full owners. However, with
regard to acreage farmed, part owner operators constitute the more signifi-
cant proportion (Appendix A). These people can be part-time farmers, farm-
ers renting land from other retired or elderly farmers, or they may be
managers of other farms. Therefore, any innovation or effort for change
introduced into the Valley will have to take into consideration that there
are a lot of part-time farmers with their practices and values in many
respects different than other types of tenured operators.
i
Finally, a third condition that may affect implementation efforts or
acceptability of proposed changes is the operation of the farm; i.e., the
amount of irrigation utilized and the productivity of the farm.
A great majority of the farm units, approximately 83 percent, utilize
irrigation to some extent. The majority of these units are less than 40.07
ha (100 acres) in size, with the largest number of farms falling into the
category of 4.05 to 19.83 ha (10 to 49 acres) in Yakima and Benton Counties.
Also, the total amount of acreage that is irrigated is disbursed throughout
the various farm size units. For example, corporate farms do not control a
large concentration of irrigated acreage, but farms of all sizes own signifi-
cant amounts of irrigated land (Appendix A). This means that any innovation
that is introduced into the area cannot concentrate on one specific type of
farmer who irrigates.
19
-------
In addition, the productivity of the farm unit is among the determining
factors to the question of how any proposed change will be accepted. In each
of the Valley's counties, the largest group of farmers are classified as part-
time, i.e., those farm units that earn $50-$2,499 of farm product sales and
are run by operators who are under 65 years of age and work off the farm 100
days or more in the census year (Appendix A). The next predominant category
is that of the $2,500-$4,999 range in Benton and Yakima Counties (and in
Kittitas the $20,000-$29,999 category). While the individual modal categor-
ies show that the concentration of farms is to be found in the lower or middle
levels of productivity, the combination of the categories into the census1
economic classes show that the distribution of farms is fairly evenly spread
throughout the various economic categories. Again, the implication of the
above is the degree of heterogeneity in the Valley and, therefore, which will
be the recipient of any innovation.
In summary, the human ecological description of the Yakima Valley demon-
strates that while the population in the Valley ?s fairly stable, there are a
number of conditions which contribute to heterogeneity and, therefore, to a
diversified approach vis-a-vis implementation efforts. There are significant
differences in the type of residency in farm operation, and in the manner in
which farms are operated. In addition, there is in process a turning-over of
farms by the European origin owner/managers who live in the Wapato Indian
Reservation to new Indian owner/managers. This action may induce further
changes in the existing situation regarding irrigation quality and alter sig-
nificantly the context within which implementation efforts must be considered.
Institutional Setting
Social institutions in their broadest definition are crystallized pat-
terns of behavior. In the present discussion, the institutional framework
that relates to irrigation return flow is made up of a number of organizations
representing Federal, State and local levels of interest. Regarding this
problem area, the critical organizations are the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Department of Ecology, and the Irrigation
Districts (Figure 3).1
The Bureau of Reclamation performs the tasks of constructing irrigation
and flood control works as well as all associated structures, such as bridges,
roads, power lines; basin water management planning; and administration,
operation and management of irrigation works constructed by the U.S. Govern-
ment (CH2M/HI11). With regard to irrigation quality, there are questions as
to the authority of the Bureau to confiscate water that is not being used for
beneficial purposes. Officials in Yakima maintain that their hands are tied
by contracts with the districts and that the Bureau cannot really tell the
districts how:to run their operations. Officials from the Department of
Ecology state that the Bureau does have the authority for water management
and therefore can establish and enforce some tough measures on irrigators in
order to maintain the quality of the river. Finally, legal opinions with
1 While a summary of the specific organizations is introduced here, Section
k, "Legal Characteristics," discusses these organizations in detail.
20
-------
U.S. BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
r
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE
;.
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
I
-^FARMER -*-
Primary Relationship
Secondary Relationship
Figure 3. Critical organizations involved with
irrigation return flow problems.
21
-------
regard to beneficial use of the water have indicated that the Bureau does have
the authority to confiscate the excess water that is not used beneficially.
All in all, however, there is still a debate as to the course of action of the
Bureau with regard to this central water quality management issue.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was created to prevent erosion, pro-
tect rivers and harbors from the effects of erosion and to increase fertility
of croplands (CH2M/HM1). Their main function with regard to water quality
management is to establish farm plans for the most beneficial use of water.
The SCS has no enforcement authority and the only incentives that this agency
can provide is by grants and loans through the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service program. This program has limited resources and there-
fore limited effects on the total program for water quality control. Essen-
tially, SCS bases its success on voluntary compliance to its recommendations.
Specifically, the agency is currently working with various farmers on a pro-
ject to clean up the irrigation return flow in the Sulphur Creek area. This
project is an unusual case where actual implementation of a specific water
quality control program is taking place.
The Water Resources Act of 1971 directed the Department of Ecology to
develop and implement a program to facilitate the decision-making process with
regard to water and related resource management, allocation and use as well as
to ensure that the waters of the State are protected and utilized for the
greatest benefit of the people of the State. The core staff for this State
Water Program consists of eleven people representing the disciplines of
regional planning, resource economics, aquatic biology, water resource
planning, sanitary engineering, hydraulic engineering, recreation resource
planning, forest science, and civil engineering. There are other programs
directly or indirectly related to the State Water Program, i.e., shoreline
management, water rights, water monitoring, flood control, and sewage drain-
age basin planning. This comprehensive program is directed towards public
participation involvement; coordination of Federal-State-local water resource
planning and management activities; monitoring of Federal activities and reg-
ulations; development of alternative plans and programs; and, finally, evolve-
ment of a system to evaluate the consequences of proposed programs, plans and
policies—environmental, social and economic.
Some of the problems seen by the Department are a State-wide shortage of
water, the problem of financing large-scale irrigation projects resulting from
the decreasing financial role of the Federal government, and the conflict
between increasing out-of-stream use for irrigation, hydropower production,
etc., and the preserving of instream flow and quality for fish, wildlife,
recreation, and aesthetics. Some of the recommendations put forward are to
change and modify the State water code in order to allocate water on a term
base which is subject to judgment of beneficial use by the State; increase
State funding of some Irrigation projects; and establish a new adjudication
procedure of existing water rights.
In this general context, the thrust and emphasis of the Department are
congruent with the broader rationale for its existence, namely, the water
resources of the State. The Department is pursuing a water program along a
direction that includes: 1) consolidation of basin water resource management
22
-------
programs (23 basins In the State); 2) establishment of a State-wide water re-
source management policy; and 3) creation of project/program position state-
ments. Thus, basin management programs will provide major policy on future
water allocation, including priorities between uses, quantity of water to be
reserved for specified future uses, flows to be maintained in streams and
rivers, and stream closure to further appropriation. State-wide policies
demarcate critical problem and issue areas for an overall policy consistent
with integrated resource management throughout the State. In this regard, the
integrity of the State's water resource is also being represented by the
Department through interstate commissions and by intergovernmental planning.
In view of the above, it is obvious that the Department of Ecology, with
its state-wide interest in total water management, looks at irrigation return
flow on a broader scale and on a more holistic basis. This agency sees the
use of the Yakima River in a more comprehensive manner than do most of the
water users and, therefore, its concern with return flow is of a different
nature. The importance of this approach as well as working philosophy and
value differences can be seen in the everyday workings of the Yakima division
of the DOE with regard to citizens meetings, the cleavage between the DOE and
the farmer, and its working relations with the Bureau of Reclamation. At the
end, the implications for eventual implementation efforts become obvious in
terms of conflicting approaches and hierarchy of goals to be achieved.
The final critical organization of the institutional framework in the
Valley is the organization closest to the farmers, namely, the irrigation
district. The irrigation district is an organization that is created by a
group of water users for the purpose of supplying irrigation water to those
users. The district is run by a board, consisting of elected farmer repre-
sentatives, along with a manager or secretary. This district is obligated to
deliver water to a user based on the contract between him and the district.
A district charges the users a set fee for operation and maintenance of the
district and for delivery of the water. With regard to water quality control,
there are questions as to the authority of the district. The DOE maintains
that the district does have the authority to control the quality of the run-
off from the farm back to the district laterals; while the districts themselves
insist that their authority over the water ends at the user's headgate.
i
The districts have formed two major associations: The Yakima River Basin
Association of Irrigation Districts and the Sunnyside Board of Control. The
Basin Association includes six major districts: Kennewick, Kittitas, Roza,
Sunnysfde Valley Irrigation District, Yakima Reservation, and Yakima Tieton.
This association consists of the wealthiest and largest districts, all of whom
have storage rights to the six reservoirs serving the USBR's Yakima Project.
The Joint Board of Control is operated by the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dis-
trict for the management of the Sunnyside division of the Yakima Project. The
Board also includes six other small irrigation districts. Major problems are
solved with direct support from Sunnyside, while minor problems are solved by
the smaller districts themselves. This arrangement allows the smaller dis-
tricts to be administratively independent while still allowing them the
ability to acquire the needed resources to maintain their operations.
23
-------
The above points out that cross-cutting organizational arrangements,
overlapping jurisdictions and debated lines of authority provide a complex
background of institutional practices and decision-making apparatuses. It
is within this institutional setting that various communication channels
emerge, various decisions must be made and various strategies to implement
those decisions are established. Together with a heterogeneous socio-
demographic context, they affect the search for alternative strategies in
implementing irrigation return flow quality control measures. Furthermore,
the legal arrangements in the area accentuate further the complexity of
identifying, assessing and implementing solutions appropriate to the phy-
sical and social conditions of the Valley.
LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS
Historical Water Law
Due to unusual climatic conditions which exist in Washington, its water
laws have been adjusted to accommodate the continuing development of the State.
Initially, the riparian doctrine was the basic law of the State, even though
rights to water flowing through public lands could be acquired by diversion
and use (Riparian and Appropriation Rights to the Use of Water in Washington,
Horowitz, 7 Wash. L. Rev. 197, 1932). In 1917, Washington adopted the appro-
priation doctrine as the exclusive means of acquiring a right to use surplus
surface waters of the State (Revised Code of Washington, Sec. 90.03.010), and
in 1945 the appropriation doctrine was extended to ground waters of the State
(R.C.W. 90.44.010 to 90.44.250).
Recent amendments to the water code have attempted to accomplish two
major objectives. First, all aspects of water right administration and water
quality control are vested in the Department of Ecology (R.C.W. 43.21A.020)
to provide coordination and integration of water resources management. The
creation of the Department of Ecology saw the abolishment of the Department
of Water Resources, the Water Resources Advisory Council, the Water Pollution
Control Commission, and the Air Pollution Control Board. All of the powers,
duties and responsibilities of the above agencies are vested in the Department
of Ecology (R.C.W. 43.21A.060 and 43.21A.300). Secondly, legislation was
enacted to recognize and protect the public interest in preserving the envi-
ronment, thereby assuring a fair balance between utilization and preservation
of the State's water resources (R.C.W. 90.54.010 to 90.54.910; Sec. 43.21C.01Q
to 43.21C.900).
State Water Quality Law
Riparian Rights--
A riparian right arises by virtue of the ownership of land adjoining a
stream and is an incident of the ownership of the abutting land (Hayward v.
Mason, 54 Wash. 653, 104 P.141, 1909). Riparian rights, as against the State,
do not exist because the State owns the bed of the stream (Proctor v. Sim,
134 Wash. 606, 236 P.114, 1925).
24
-------
Although a riparian right is acquired as an incident to the purchase of
riparian land (Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 39 P.485, 1897), it can be
severed from the land and transferred independently or reserved by the grantor
(Pleasant Valley Irr. and P. Co. v. Barker, 98 Wash. 459, 167 P.1092, 1917).
Acquisition of a riparian right can also be accomplished under adverse pos-
session (Smith v. Nechanicky. 123 Wash. 8, 211 P.880, 1923).
An appropriative right is a right to divert and make use of the water
(Madison v. McNeal. 171 Wash. 669, 19 P.2d 97, 1933). It is a usufractuary
right (Ibid.).The basis and the limit of the right acquired is that quantity
of water which can be beneficially used (Miller v. Wheeler. 54 Wash. 429, 103
P.641, 1910). State law provides that appropriators who are first in time are
first in right (R.C.W. 90.03.010). The right is only acquired by complying
with statutory procedures.
Though both riparian and appropriative rights are recognized, they are
subject to many of the same constraints. To begin with, beneficial use has
been used to define the extent of appropriation and riparian rights, which
divert and use water from a stream Ob id., in re Stranger Creek, 77 Wash. 2d
649, 466 P.2d 508, 1970). This beneficial use limitation does not apply to
riparian uses which do not remove water from the stream. These latter uses
include boating, swimming and other recreational uses in the stream (_R.C.W.
90.14.020).
Until 1967, prospective rights of the riparians were unclear. Earlier
decisions indicated that riparian owners were to be protected to some degree
when future use was the issue. The 1967 Water Right Claims Act cleared up
this problem. That Act required that riparian uses be adjudicated along with
appropriation rights and have a priority assigned to them. It also ended^the
possibility that a consumptive use could be established by means of riparian
land ownership.
Appropriative Rights-- . ,
The appropriation system is the exclusive method of acquiring rights in
unappropriated water as provided by the water code passed in 1917 CR.C.W.
90.03.010 to .480). In order to initiate a water right under the code, an
application for a permit must be filed with the Director of the Department of
Ecology (R.C.W. 90.03.250) containing Information relevant to the applicant,
source of water supply and use CR.C.W. 90.03.260). In order to approve such
an application and issue a permit, the Director must find that there^Is un-
appropriated water in the source and the proposed use will not conflict with
existing rights nor prove detrimental to the public interest CR.C.W. 90.03.290],
If the water is for irrigation purposes, the Director must also determine
what lands are capable of irrigation from the proposed source; when the appli-
cation does not provide sufficient information to make all findings necessary,
the Director has the discretion of issuing a preliminary permit for no longer
than three years and requiring the applicant to provide the prescribed surveys,
study and other data (R.C.W. 90.03.250). The other option is to reject the
application as incomplete and specify the deficiencies. This latter course
causes the applicant to lose his priority date, however. If the permit is
issued for irrigation purposes, the water right becomes appurtenant "only to
25
-------
such land as may be reclaimed thereby to the full extent of the soil for
agricultural purposes" (Ibid.).
When the project works are completed, which must be with due diligence
and within the time prescribed by the Director (R.C.W. 90.03-320), and the
water is placed to beneficial use, a certificate is issued by the Director
which evidences the perfected water right (R.C.W. 90.03-330). The priority
date of the water right relates back to the date of the original application
submitted to the Department of Ecology (R.C.W. 90.03.340).
The procedure for processing an application for a permit to use ground
water is the same as the procedure governing surface waters (R.C.W. 90.44.060),
Permits for ground water may not be granted beyond the capacity of a given
water basin. This determination is to take into account a reasonable or
feasible pumping rate in case of new developments in pumping or a reasonable
or feasible reduction of pressure in the case of artesian developments. Per-
mits also may not be approved if the Director determines that the new permit
would impair an existing right (R.C.W. 90.44.070). Once the application is
approved and the works are constructed, and the water is placed to beneficial
use, the certificate evidencing the perfected right is issued by the Director
(R.C.W. 90.44.080).
Beneficial Use-
Beneficial use is used to define the extent of an appropriation right in
that an appropriation right can only be perfected for the amount of water
which is beneficially used, and this is determined at the time the appropria-
tion is made and completed. Thus, it is the quantity of water which is bene-
ficially used that is the right acquired and not the amount of water which is
diverted from the stream (R.C.W. 90.03.010, in re Stranger Creek, loc. cit.).
Adjudication of Rights--
Washington has a statutory procedure which provides for a comprehensive
adjudication of rights among users of water from a common source. This pro-
cedure is initiated by a petition of one or more users from the source, which
is filed with the Director of the Department of Ecology. Upon such a filing,
the Director is to determine whether the interest of the public will be best
served by such a determination. If he so determines, he prepares a statement
of facts together with a map of the sources being investigated and files this
information in the Superior Court of the county where the water source is
situated. This statement is to contain the names of all known persons claim-
ing a right from the source involved and a brief statement of facts leading
to the necessity for such a determination (R.C.W. 90.03.010). Once the state-
ment is filed, the summons is issued directing all water users to file a state-
ment setting forth the nature and extent of the rights they claim (R.C.W.
90.03.120). If the owner of the water or the claimant of the water is un-
known, service is made upon him by publication.
Once the service of summons is completed, testimony Is taken by the
Director relative to the claims of the individual users (R.C.W. 90.03.160).
Upon completion of this task, a transcript of the testimony is prepared along
with his report and all exhibits received in evidence. A time is then fixed
by the court for the hearing on the Director's report and all users are
26
-------
notified at this time (R.C.W. 90.03.190). If no exceptions are filed by any
interested party, the court enters a decree determining the rights according
to the evidence and report of the Director. If exceptions are filed, the
court may, at its descretion, take further evidence. The right of appeal from
the district court decisions may be taken to the Supreme Court of Appeals
(R.C.W. 90.03.200). On final determination of the rights by a court, the
Director issues a certificate to each person entitled to the use of the water
which describes the nature and extent of the water right awarded (R.C.W. 90.
03.240). Failure of a person after proper legal service to appear and submit
proof of his acclaim results in an estoppel barring him from asserting any
right to the use of water from the source being adjudicated (R.C.W. 90.03.220).
In addition to the statutory procedure for determining rights to a water
right source, a person aggrieved by any order or decision or determination of
a Director or any water master may, after exhausting his administrative reme-
dies, appeal the decision and have the matter reviewed by the superior court
in the county where the use is situated. The appeal must be initiated, how-
ever, within twenty days of the order of the decision. The burden is on the
user to prove the decision of the water master is prima facie correct.
Relinquishment—
Legislation was passed in 196? providing for the relinquishment of water
rights. The statute applies both to riparian and appropriation rights and to
both surface and ground water (R.C.W. 90.14.130 to 90.14.210). The statute
provides that any person is entitled to use water by virtue of an appropria-
tion or is entitled to divert or withdraw water from a water course by virtue
of the ownership of riparian lands, who voluntarily abandons or fails to use
water without sufficient cause for five successive years after the date of
act, 1967, relinquishes such right or the portion of the right not used. The
water right thus relinquished reverts to the public and is available for
appropriation (R.C.W. 90.14.160, 90.14.180 and 90.14.210).
The person whose right is threatened is to be notified by the Director of
DOE to show why the right or a portion of it should not be declared relinquished
(R.C.W. 90.14.130). The relevant statute provides a list of sufficient causes
which will prevent a loss of the right in the case of nonuse. Such causes
bridge the spectrum from drought to service in the armed forces to pendency of
a suit or a claim on the right for future development (R.C.W. 90.14.140).
Such a decision of the Director is subject to judicial review, but his deci-
sion in finding that a right has been relinquished is deemed by statute to be
prima facie correct (R.C.W. 90.14.190). Thus the burden is on the user to
prove the decision incorrect or arbitrary.
Abandonment of a water right requires an intent to voluntarily give up
the right as well as non-use of the water. It could be used in a case where
non-use of water has occurred and apparently the user intends to give up the
right. Rather than let the water go to waste, the state or a private person
by suit could attempt to declare the water right abandoned so as to establish
the right to use it. Both the elements of a nonuse and intent, however, are
necessary (Sander v. Bull, 76 Wash. 1, 235 P.489, 1913), and each case boils
down essentially to a fact determination on its merits.
27
-------
The Washington legislature has provided that no appropriative rights to
the use of surface or ground water affecting either appropriated or unappropri-
ated water may be acquired by prescriptive or adverse use (R.C.W. 90.14.220).
Condemnation—
Beneficial use of water is a public use of water in Washington. The re-
sult is that any person may exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn
an inferior use for a superior use. The determination is left to the district
court to decide which is of greater public benefit. The one exception to this
is that no one may acquire irrigation water by condemnation since such an
action could deprive a person of the quantity of water which would be neces-
sary to fully irrigate lands using methods common to the area (R.C.W. 90.03.
040). The point is of importance in that it appears that the statute does
not require a user to use the best, most efficient or most productive irriga-
tion method. This would appear to be a serious weakness in the Washington
code.
Washington recognizes power production as being inferior to irrigation
use if the water is to be solely used for power production. But, it recog-
nizes also that domestic stock watering uses are superior to irrigation.
State Water Quality Laws
The responsibility for water quality control is also vested in the
Department of Ecology (R.C.W. 43.21A.020 and 43.21A.060). To facilitate the
accomplishment of this responsibility, the Director is authorized to promul-
gate rules and regulations pertaining to the statute of quality for the waters
of the State (R.C.W. 90.48.035). The Act prohibits the discharge of any
matter into the water of the State which will result in pollution (R.C.W. 90.
48.080), and all plans and specifications for the construction of new sewer
systems or the extention of existing sewer systems must be approved by the
Director (R.C.W. 90.48.110).
Any person conducting a commercial or industrial operation which results
in the disposal of waste into the waters of the State must obtain a permit
for such a discharge (R.C.W. 90.48.160). This requirement extends to coun-
ties, municipalities, or public corporations operating domestic sewage treat-
ment facilities (R.C.W. 90.48.162). Such permits must be initiated by formal
application, and a provision is made for notice and public hearing before a
permit request is acted upon (R.C.W. 90.48.170). The Director is to issue a
permit unless he finds that the proposed discharge will pollute the. waters of
the State in violation of public policy (R.C.W. 90.48.180). The public pol-
icy of the State as defined by the Act is:
To maintain the highest possible standards to insure the
purity of all waters of the state consistent with public
health and public enjoyment thereof; the propagation and
protection of all wildlife, birds, game, fish, and other
aquatic life; and the industrial development of the state,
and to that end require the use of all known and reasonable
methods by industries and others to prevent and control the
pollution of waters of the state of Washington (R.C.W. 90.
48.010).
28
-------
Provision Is made for modification of a permit if conditions change
(R.C.W. 90.48.195). In addition, a permit may be terminated if it is deter-
mined that there was a misrepresentation in obtaining it, or a violation of
the conditions in the permit, or a material change in the waste being disposed
(R.C.W. 90.48.190).
In addition, there is authority for establishing water drainage basins
and for adopting a comprehensive plan for the control and abatement of water
pollution within such basins (R.C.W. 90.48.270). However, these plans cannot
be adopted until there has been a public hearing on them. However, once
adopted, they must be complied with (R.C.W. 90.48.280).
Persons aggrieved by the decision of the Director may appeal to the
courts, and those person who violate the provision of the Act or any final
order of the Director are liable to damages for injury or death of fish,
animal or vegetation destroyed by their actions (R.C.W. 90,48.142).
Water Quality in a Water Right
Though the above provisions appear to show a concern for water quality
in the State of Washington, there is a disappointing number of decisions deal-
ing with the quality element of a water right—if indeed such an element exists.
As to the question of whether such a right exists, there is some differ-
ence of opinion among people in the water area in Washington. One individual
flatly stated that there was no quality element to be found in a water right
in Washington (Personal interview with Ralph Johnson, College of Law, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, March 20, 1975). In his opinion,
the debris cases were no authority for improving a water quality element.
On the other hand, another individual (Personal interview with Charles
Roe, Senior Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington, Dept. of Ecology,
Olympia, Washington, March 25, 1975) was equally sure that a quality element
existed in Washington as part of a water right. To buttress this opinion, a
case was cited which dealt with a complaint by a group of irrigators (Matches
and Cowyche Ditch Co. v. Weikel, 87 Wash-1. This case is concerned with salt-
ation of irrigation works. The Washington Supreme Court refused to grant
relief to the group because the! pollution complained of did not interfere with
the existing use. The interference was non-point in the sense that the sllta-
tion could not be traced to a single identifiable area. However, the Court
was careful to point out that interference with a water right by pollution
was a matter to be decided on a case-by-case basts. We thus conclude that a
quality element does exist in Washington as part of a water right.
Administrative Regulations
The general administrative supervision of Washington's water resources
is vested in the Department of Ecology. The general responsibility of the
Department, according to the statute is:
To establish a single state agency with the authority to manage
and develop our air and water resources in an orderly, efficient
29
-------
and effective manner, and to carry out a coordinated program
of pollution control involving these and related land sources
(R.C.W. 43.21A.020).
This Department is to develop and implement a comprehensive State water
resources program (R.C.W. 90.54.040). It has the power to carry out the pol-
icies of the Department including reserving water and setting it aside for
future beneficial use, or withdrawing it from appropriation while data is
developed for sound decision-making (R.C.W. 90.54.050).
The administrative head of the Department is the Director, who is
appointed by the Governor (R.C.W. 43.21A.050). An Ecological Commission was
created to advise the Director on matters relating to: 1) the position taken
by the State before any interstate body or agency on matters affecting the
quality of the environment of the State; 2) the development of the State
policies with regard to any comprehensive environmental quality plan; 3) pro-
cedures for considering and granting variances; 4) propose legislation relat-
ing to the Department; and 5) any other matter related to the Department and
requested by the Director (R.C.W. 43.21A.190). As has been noted, with
respect to initiation of new water rights, an application to appropriate must
be filed and approved by the Director (R.C.W. 90.03-010 to 90.03-480).
To aid in the distribution of water according to water rights, the
Director may appoint state employees who are responsible to the Director
(R.C.W. 90.03.060). In order to facilitate this task, the Director may
designate water districts and may adjust the boundaries of each district from
time to time as conditions dictate (R.C.W. 90.03-360). The primary responsi-
bility of the water master is to divide a water supply among the users accord-
ing to their respective rights and priorities and to prevent a use of water in
excess of the amount to which a user is legally entitled (R.C.W. 90.03.070).
Water users are required to install and maintain adequate measuring
devices and control facilities (R.C.W. 90.03.360). It is unlawful to inter-
fere with the regulation of these works, or with storage or water carriage
facilities (R.C.W. 90.03.360).
Federal Law
The Yakima project, as with most of the congressional reclamation pro-
jects, was approved under the general authority of the Reclamation Act of 1902
(32 Stat. 388, 43 USCS 372). This statute: 1) established a reclamation fund
created from receipts gathered from the sale of public land in the sixteen
western states; 2) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to use this fund
to investigate the possibilities of irrigation works and to construct those
works; 3) withdrew those lands from public entry that are needed for irriga-
tion works or that can be served by such works; 4) established the 160-acre
limitation for single ownership; and 5) gave the Secretary of the Interior
authority to acquire any property needed to carry out the Act, either by pur-
chase or condemnation under judicial process (Id., as cited in Land Develop-
ment and Water Use, Yakima River Basin, Washington, Appendix 6A, p. 1;
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman, Washington, 1972).
30
-------
The irrigation works permitted and provided for under this Act had a
split ownership. That is, the irrigation works were to pass to the owners of
the land irrigated, but the title and management and operations of the reser-
voirs and the works necessary for the protection of these reservoirs remained
in the government until Congress provided otherwise. This provision for Con-
gressional or Federal Government control was due to the concern of an inter-
ference with state laws. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 provides:
...that nothing in this act shall be construed as effecting or
intended to effect or to, in any way, interfere with the laws
of any state or territory relating to the control, appropriation,
use or distribution of waters used in irrigation, or any vested
right acquired thereunder. And the Secretary of the Interior,
in carrying out the provisions of this act, shall proceed in
conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way
effect any right of any state or the federal government, or of
any landowner, appropriator, or user of water, into or from any
interstate stream or water thereof, provided the right to the
use of water acquired under the provisions of this act shall
be appurtenant to the land irrigated and beneficial use shall
be the basis, the measure and the limit of the right (32 Stat.
388, 43 USCA 372 (8)).
The State of Washington enacted a statute in 1905 to give the United
States authority to acquire property for the purpose of developing irrigated
lands under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (R.C.W. Chapter 90.40 et. seq.). By
this statute, the United States was granted the power of eminent domain to
acquire the use of a right to any water or lands or property for the con-
struction or maintenance or control of any project used for irrigation pur-
poses regardless of who owned the property (R.C.W. 90.40.010).
Duties Under Repayment Contracts—
The contracts for repayment between the district and the United States
define obligations of the parties regarding the operation and maintenance of
the storage and conveyance systems as well as the allocation of water to the
district and lands within the district along with a manner of assessment and
repayment of the construction posts. The basic provisions of the contracts
appear to be similar. They cover essentially the disposition of the return
flows; what uses may be made of the water, and where it may be used; the con-
ditions which would permit a change in district boundaries; allocation of
water to lands within the district along with a recital of the obligations of
the district to provide service to the members; and methods of rationing in
times of shortage.
Return Flows—
The usual provisions in the contracts for the districts in the Yakima
system provide that the United States retains ownership of the waste, seepage
and return flow waters resulting from the irrigation of project lands. It is
also provided that the United States or the district may use these waters
which result from irrigation of lands within the district as a part of the
supply to lands within the district and such supply shall be toward fulfill-
ing the total supply to which the district is entitled under contract.
31
-------
Authorized Uses and Place of Use—
There Is generally a provision limiting the type of use to irrigation of
lands which are classified as "irrigable" lands within the boundaries of the
district. The contract terms usually limit the place of use to the lands
classified "irrigable," and this is defined very narrowly. For example, the
district is limited to a maximum of 72,000 irrigable acres, and water may be
delivered only to lands which have been classified as irrigable with the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Personal interview with Henry
Vancik, Sunnyside, Washington, Rosa Irrigation District, March 24, 1975).
There are, however, occasions when a contract provides for an expandable area
of use under the conditions that the amount of water delivered to the district
is more than can be beneficially used by the irrigable lands in order that the
water provided can be used most efficiently (see Land Development and Water
Use, Yakima River Basin, Washington, Appendix 6B).
Allocation of Water to Users Within a District--
Generally, the district water supply seems to be made available to users
on a uniform basic allotment, usually three acre-feet per irrigable acre, with
an additional provision that additional water may be purchased on an unlimited
basis for some multiple of the basic charge. There are exceptions to this
general outline: some of the districts' board of directors are empowered to
determine the amount of water to be delivered to each acre, contingent upon
payment of the basic charge, while some directors are empowered to set minimum
quantities of water available to land, but are limited to the maximum amount
which may be delivered there without charging an additional rate for any
excess water. Still others allocate water on the basis of ownership of shares
in the district, which represent shares in the water supply.
No matter what the method of allocation, the board of directors is under
an obligation to operate their system (irrigation) with the goal of making
available to each irrigable acre in the district the quantity of water to
which it is entitled. This is subject to the option of refusing to deliver
water to parties who fail to pay their share of operation and maintenance or
construction repayment assessments.
The 1945 Consent Decree
On January 31, 19^5, the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Washington, Southern Division, allotted the waters of the Yakima
River among most of the irrigation districts in the basin (this material may
be found in the "19^5 Consent Decree" but this discussion of that decree
relies heavily on a short synopsis found in Land Development and Water Use,
Yakima River Basin, Washington, Appendix 6A, p. 4, 1972). The decree affirmed,
basically, the allocation of water provided for in repayment contracts previ-
ously executed between the United States and water users. There were some
differences, however, which necessitated mandatory contracts with some of the
districts.
The decree basically tells the United States what obligations it has to
deliver water to the parties affected by the decree. It does this by provid-
ing a schedule of deliveries and sets the basis for rationing water during
times of short supply, which depends upon distinguishing between "total water
32
-------
supply available" and "natural rights." Total water supply available is de-
fined as that amount of water available in any year from the natural flow of
the Yakima River and its tributaries along with storage in the various govern-
ment reservoirs in the Yakima watershed and from any other source. This is
the amount available to meet the contract obligations of the United States to
deliver water and to supply water rights claimed to the use of water on the
Yakima River.
If the United States is not able to satisfy its obligations of the decree
for any reason, such as drought, then each claimant is entitled to a pro-rate
share of his claim. This share is calculated by looking at each claimant's
entitlement as compared to the total of water supply available. This propor-
tion is minus certain amounts which were listed in the decree as exempt from
prorationing. These exempted amounts were natural flow rights which preceded
development of storage by the United States, and which were established to the
natural flow of the river prior to 1902. After withdrawals of water for a
project, the United States may make a formal appropriation for a water right
according to state law. The duty of the United States is to make, maintain
and perfect the appropriation. It is allowed to assign such appropriation in
the same manner as an individual.
Transfer of Water Within Irrigation Districts
There are several laws bearing on changes in types of use, places of use,
or transfers of ownership. These are the Federal reclamation laws, state
laws governing individual water rights and the powers of irrigation districts
and repayment contracts between the United States and irrigation districts.
There are constraints on transfers of water within the boundaries of an irri-
gation district, whether these transfers are between uses or users or places
of use within that district. These constraints are: state law, repayment
contracts the district might have with the United States, and bylaws and reg-
ulations of the district board of directors. Since an irrigation district is
a creature of the State, it follows that it has those powers which have been
conferred on it by statute or by necessary implications as a result of powers
granted by statute (R.C.W. Title 87; see also, in re Riverside Irrigation
District. 129 Wash. 627, 225 P.636, 1924). The powers granted by statute to
the districts include: the power to construct or purchase works for the irri-
gation of lands within the district; the power to construct, acquire, operate
and maintain a system for the sale or lease of water to the owners of irri-
gated lands in the district for domestic purposes; and the power to construct,
operate and maintain a system of drains (R.C.W. 87-03-115 and 87-03.010).
These are general powers that do not provide much guidance when attempt-
ing to ascertain the extent of the power to apportion water and to subsequent-
ly transfer water within irrigation boundaries. Any powers the board of
directors have to apportion water are to be exercised according to established
bylaws, rules and regulations for the equitable distribution of water to the
lands within the district based upon beneficial use requirements.
The phrase "beneficial use" is not susceptible to an easy definition.
However, statute (R.C.W. 90.03.040) provides that all persons shall be pro-
vided that quantity of water which is reasonably necessary for the irrigation
33
-------
of his land, and that this irrigation is to be accomplished by the most eco-
nomical method of artificial irrigation, which would apply to the land in
question, according to the usual methods of artificial irrigation employed
in the vicinity where the land is situated. In all cases, the court is the
determining body as to what is the most economical method of irrigation (Id.).
From this definition, it would appear that beneficial use means simply that
amount of water sufficient to meet all crop requirements plus any reasonable
losses in conveyance and application.
What the term "equitable distribution" means is not clear at all. It is
assumed it means all landowners within a project area or within a district
must be treated equally. If this is so, then it would follow that each land-
owner is entitled to the full supply of water needed to irrigate the crop
which he is growing. This formula runs into difficulty in times of shortage,
for it is then incumbent upon the irrigation district to determine if equit-
able distribution is the measure to proportionally reduce the allotment to the
landowner. However, since the definition of beneficial use seems to include
such elements as the type of crop growing on a certain type of land, then the
proportionate reduction is going to have to take into account the types of
crops involved and where they are being grown. Clearly, the administrative
problem here becomes a severe one. The duties of the board of directors are
further complicated by statutory directives that they distribute and appor-
tion water of the district in accordance with the acts of Congress along with
the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior until full payment
has been made to the United States for the project involved (R.C.W. 87.03.115).
There is some latitude and variation in the contract requirements and
this is reflected in the district bylaws. One district which has been stud-
ied— the Roza Irrigation District—begins with a basic allocation of 914 mm
(3 acre-feet) per irrigable acre as a basic allotment regardless of land
quality. The water user is assessed a cost per acre for construction as well
as cost per acre for operation and maintenance costs which include a small
percentage for a reserve fund. Upon payment of his assessments, a water user
is entitled to the basic 3 acre-feet allotment on demand within limits of the
system's capacity. He may also purchase excess water at an increased price if
such demand is within the limits of the system's capacity and if there is an
adequate supply. In cases where demands exceed the delivery capacity of a
system, all demands are reduced on a proportionate scale. This reduction
is imposed whether the demand is for water within the basic allotment or for
excess water.
In order to transfer a right, there are several restrictions. After
payment has been made for the basic allotment in the Roza District, the first
3 acre-feet per acre may be transferred by the owner to another point of de-
livery provided the acreage to which the water is transferred is farmed in
fact by the transferor as the bona fide owner or the leasee of that land for
the year in which the transfer is to be effective. Also/written instructions
are to be filed with the district and approved by the manager or the secretary.
The water rights themselves cannot be transferred (Id., p. 13).
-------
The effect of these regulations is that a water user is free to distri-
bute his total supply around his acreage as he needs it in whatever manner he
sees fit. But he cannot sell any portion of his supply to another water user.
The practices followed in the Roza District are substantially different
from those practiced and reported in the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District
(Id., p. 14). The allocation of water for the Sunnyside District is made
upon the basis of beneficial use. Beneficial use is defined by the district
as the amount an individual needs to grow a crop. This amount is limited by
the total supply available, the rights of other users and system capacity.
This allocation system takes into account various soil types because the soil
types vary from an excellent loam to a sandier soil as the land is found
farther away and upslope from the river.
Maintenance in the Sunnyside District is done on a very local basis with-
in the district itself. The district has divided itself into what are called
Maintenance Districts which are landowner organizations on particular later-
als with a district manager recording and levying assessments for each of
these maintenance districts. The creation of these maintenance districts
was necessitated by farmer inactivity. The first arrangement at Sunnyside
was that farmers on laterals with less than 10 cubic feet per second (cfsl
flow would get together on a certain day and clean out and repair the lateral.
This became unsatisfactory as the individuals dropped out and the users at the
end of the lateral found themselves doing all the work. This was combined
with new owners coming in and refusing to do their share of the work. Conse-
quently, the maintenance district was necessitated along with an enforcement
of assessments to insure that these laterals are maintained (Jd,, p. 15).
The particularly lengthy discussion of the legal characteristics of the
water resource in Yakima (and for that matter in many other western valleys)
epitomizes the concrete difficulties of developing appropriate solutions in a
combination of technological options and institutional measures.
Using, then, not only the limitations that the legal imperatives provide
but also the physical, economic and social characteristics of the area, we
should now proceed in describing the nature and causes of the problem of irri-
gation return flow and the articulation of potential solutions that would
provide the basis for a strategy of implementing "packages" or combinations
of solutions aimed at improving water quality.
35
-------
SECTION 5
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
This section attempts to relate the nature and characteristics of the
problem of water degradation from Irrigation at Yakima Valley. Central em-
phasis is given to the delineation of water quality standards and to the
sources of water quality degradation. In the juxtaposition between the last
two, the section concludes with an overview of future quality considerations.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Water quality standards for the State of Washington were published by the
Department of Ecology on July 19, 1973- These standards went into effect on
July 19, 1973, and were amended effective August 20, 1973. The waters in the
Yakima River Basin were classified into one of the five categories (AA, A, B,
C, or Lake), depending upon quality or the desirable quality. Those listed
as Class AA are:
American River from confluence with Bumping Lake to headwaters;
Bumping River from confluence with Naches River to headwaters;
Cle Elum River from confluence with Yakima River to Cle Elum Lake;
Naches River from Snoqualmie National Forest boundary to headwaters;
Tieton River from confluence with Naches River to headwaters;
Yakima River from Cle Elum River to headwaters.
Characteristic uses of Class AA fresh waters include, but are not limited
to, the following:
- water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural);
- wildlife habitat, stock watering;
- general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (picnicking, hiking,
fishing, swimming, skiing, and boating);
- fish reproduction, rearing and harvest.
Listed as Class A is:
Yakima River from Sunnyside Dam to Wilson Creek, with the provision of
special conditions indicating that temperature of water shall not
exceed 70°F.
Characteristic uses of Class A waters are the same as for Class AA waters.
36
-------
Listed as Class B is:
Yakima River from confluence with. Columbia River to Sunnyside Dam.
Characteristic uses of Class B fresh waters shall include, but are not lim-
ited to, the following:
- industrial and agricultural water supply;
- fishery and wildlife habitat;
- general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (picnicking, hiking,
fishing, and boating);
- stock watering.
Any water body not specifically listed is designated as Class A.
The water quality criteria for these classes are shown in Table 3.
Frequent review of the uses and criteria are anticipated by the Department of
Ecology and revisions will be undertaken as additional information is
developed.
These classifications do not establish standards for concentrations of
total dissolved solids, nitrogen or phosphorus levels or suspended solids,
although the last may be associated with turbidity. Maximum desirable total
dissolved solids concentrations depend on the use of the water and the pre-
sence of other constituents, but in any case are not a significant factor in
the Yakima Valley. The presence of nitrogen and phosphorus is important in
respect to algal growth, which may be indirectly indicated by dissolved oxy-
gen levels and turbidity. For nitrogen (NOj + NOz), the potential algal
bloom limiting concentration is 0.30 mg/1. For total phosphorus and dis-
solved orthophosphate, the potential algal bloom limiting concentrations
are 0.05 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively (EPA, 1975).
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Sources of pollution in the Yakima Valley are closely related to the
economic base of agriculture.' Municipalities and industries are the largest
sources of organic wastes. The food processing industry accounts for most of
the industrial waste production and nearly three-fourths of the waste load is
discharged to municipal systems. Diversion of water for irrigation tends to
reduce the assimilative capacity of the river and return flows significantly
affect water quality. Extensive stock watering and feedlot activities also
have affected water quality.
The headwaters of the Yakima River and most tributaries are of adequate
water quality for most purposes. However, during the period of low stream-
flow, the lower reaches of the river suffer from various water quality
degradations. The most significant problems are high stream temperatures,
heavy algal growths and bacterial contamination (Pacific Northwest River
Basin Commission, App. 12). The present water quality for average flow con-
ditions at a number of stations in the Yakima Valley is shown in Table 4.
37
-------
TABLE 3. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Parameter
Class AA
(Extraordinary)
Class A
(Excellent)
Class B
(Good)
oo
Total coliform organisms
(colonies/100 ml)
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Total dissolved gas
Temperature °C **
pH
Turbidity, JTU
Toxic, radioactive or
deleterious material
concentrations
Aesthetic values
Median <_ 50, with
< 10% > 230*
> 9.5
<_ 110% saturation
1 15.6 (60°F)
6.5 to 8.5,induced
variation < 0.1
<_ 5 above natural
Below those affecting
public health, natural
aquatic environment or
desirability of water
for any use
Not impaired by
presence of unnatural
materials
Median <_ 240, with
< 20% > 1000*
> 8.0
<_ 110% saturation
1 18.3 (65°F)
6.5 to 8.5,induced
variation < 0.25
<_ 5 above natural
Below those of public
health significance,
causing acute or chronic
toxic conditions to
aquatic biota, or
adversely affecting
any water use
Not impaired by
presence of unnatural
materials
Median <_ 1,000 with
< 10% > 2400*
> 6.5 or 70%
saturation
£ 110% saturation
1 21.1 (70°F)
6.5 to 8.5,induced
variation < 0.5
<_ 10 above natural
Same as Class A,
except related to
characteristic water
uses
Not reduced by
unnatural materials
which could affect
water use or taint
flesh of edible
species
* When associated with any fecal source.
** t = permitted temperature increase; T = water temperature due to all causes combined.
-------
TABLE it. YAKIMA RIVER WATER QUALITY AT SELECTED STATIONS FOR AVERAGE FLOW CONDITIONS
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
YAKIMA RIVER
Maximum Temperature (° C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Specific Conductance (Micro-mhos/cm)
Total Coliform (Colonies/100 ml)
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) (N)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/1) F
Turbidity (JTU)
12.0
11.6
55
36
0.04
0.00
1
6.5
12.0
57
430
0.01
0.00
1
3.0
12.2
57
155
0.03
0.00
1
1.5
12.3
56
67
0.02
0.00
2
2.5
13-0
66
476
0.02
0.00
1
3-5
12.1
61
101
0.02
0.01
1
YAKIMA RIVER
Maximum Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Specific Conductance (Micro-mhos/cm)
Total Coliform (Colonies/100 ml)
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) (N)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/l) P
Turbidity (JTU)
if.o
9.8
142
220
0.14
0.04
1
6.5
10.2
141
400
0.18
0.06
1
3-5
10.6
126
2,900
0.21
0.08
1
2.0
11.8
119
7,900
0.18
0.06
1
3.0
11.4
125
3,500
0.16
0.09
2
6.5
12.6
140
2,000
0.21
0.10
2
APR MAY
AT CLE ELUM
4-5 7-0
11.7 11-3
58 52
23 100
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.01
1 1
AT ROZA DAM
8.0 11.0
11.2 10.0
101 109
1,175 850
0.13 0.14
0.10 0.06
2 2
JUN
12.0
10.4
49
106
0.01
0.00
1
15.5
8.7
108
900
0.12
0.04
2
JUL
14.0
9.4
46
330
0.02
0.00
1
16.0
9-2
85
750
0.10
0.04
2
AUG
16.5
9.4
44
85
0.01
0.00
1
16.0
9.5
89
700
0.10
0.04
2
SEP
16.0
9-5
48
280
0.03
0.01
1
15.0
10.5
108
1,600
0.12
0.05
1
LOWER NACHES RIVER
Maximum Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Specific Conductance (Micro-mhos/cm)
Total Coliform (Colonies/100 ml)
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/l) (N)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/l) P
Turbidity (JTU)
10.0
11.6
92
95
0.04
0.02
1
5.5
12.2
86
85
0.04
0.01
2
3-0
12.9
73
50
0.04
0.01
2
1.0
13.2
77
175
0.04
0.03
2
4.0
12.9
75
132
0.04
0.02
2
6.0
12.9
86
54
0.05
O.o4
2
8.5 10.0
11.8 11.2
85 62
200 260
0.05 0.04
0.02 0.04
5 2
12.0
10.4
57
570
0.04
0.02
1
18.0
917
65
405
0.04
0.06
1
19-0
10.1
68
608
0.04
0.05
1
16.0
10.4
76
850
0.05
0.06
1
(cent i nuod)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Maximum Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Specific Conductance (Micro-mhos /cm)
Total Coliform (Colonies/100 ml )
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/1 (N)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/l) P
Turbidity (JTU)
Maximum Temperature (°C)
_t Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
O
.Specific Conductance (Micro-mhos/cm)
Total Coliform (Colonies/100 ml)
Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/1) (N)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus (mg/1) P
Turbidity (JTU)
OCT
11.0
9.8
183
1,100
0.24
0.09
5
12.0
10.7
350
11,000
0.85
0.12
3
NOV
6.5
11.0
178
850
0.22
0.06
3
7-5
10.0
265
7,000
0.82
0.12
3
DEC
2.0
11.0
144
2,500
0.20
0.07
2
4.0
11. 4
230
30,000
0.85
0.12
3
JAN
2.0
10.8
128
3,500
0.22
0.06
15
3.0
12.0
245
28,000
0.67
0.10
15
FEB
4.5
11-7
130
2,100
MAR
YAK I MA RIVER
6.0
11.7
137
1,300 3
0.20 0.31
0.07
8
5.0
11.8
200
60,000
0.73
0.11
15
0.09
9
YAK IMA RIVER
7-5
11.8
215
45,000 21
0.73
0.13
15
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
NEAR PARKER
8.5
11.7
103
,300 2
0.11
0.06
20
AT KIONA
10.5
10.5
180
,000 9
0.40
0.11
15
11.0
10.7
89
,400
0.13
0.06
20
15.0
9-2
175
,000
0.62
0.11
20
15-0
10.2
81
1 ,300
0.10
0.06
5
18.5
8.5
170
11,000
0.53
0.10
10
18.0
9.1
103
3,000
0.10
0.06
5
22.0
7-7
310
7,000
0.78
0.10
10
18.0
9.3
112
2,400
0.13
0.06
3
21.0
7.9
335
63,000
0.89
0.13
6
16.5
8.5
130
9,600
0.18
0.06
4
16.0
9.1
335
63,000
0.98
0.13
5
SOURCE: CH2M/Hill, Characteristics of Present Water Quality Conditions (January 1974).
-------
The comparison of existing river water quality shown in Table k to the
water quality standards outlined in Table 3 indicates that in the upper
reaches of the river the quality generally complies with the standards except
for total coliform and occasionally temperature and dissolved oxygen levels.
Additional data from the same source not included indicates that violations
of these parameters are more common on the upper reaches of tributaries to the
main stem of the Yakima River and less common on the upper reaches of tribu-
taries to the Naches River. At Roza Dam, temperature and dissolved oxygen
standards are generally violated during the summer months and the total coli-
form count during most of the year. In addition, nitrate-nitrogen levels
show a marked increase and the threshold level for potential algal bloom is
reached by orthophosphate. Data published by Sylvester and Seabloom (1963)
for 1956-60 indicated that temperatures, nitrate and phosphorus levels were
above acceptable levels as far upstream as Roza Dam. This was true for
nitrates and phosphates even during the non-irrigation season.
At Kiona in the lower river, the standard for total coliform count is
greatly exceeded year round. The potential algal bloom limiting concentration
is exceeded for nitrates and orthophosphates year round, also. The temper-
ature standard is occasionally violated.
The chemical, physical and biological quality of irrigation return flows
in the Valley have been the subject of numerous past and on-going studies.
Data obtained in these studies show that turbidity, BOD, dissolved solids,
coliform organisms, and temperature are somewhat higher in irrigation drains
than in the river. Pesticides and other agricultural chemicals have also
been found in the drains (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, App 12).
The average values of quality parameters for the major drains in the Valley
for 197^ irrigation season are shown in Table 5-
As the return flow drains are not listed in the State water quality
standards, they fall under Class A. The data in Table 5 indicates that drain
waters markedly violate coliform standards and exceed threshold limits for
nitrogen and phosphorus. A valuable comparison can be made between Tables
k and 5 generally pointing out the differences in water quality of the
river at various locations to the water quality in the drains. For example,
orthophosphate levels during the irrigation season generally average about
0.05 mg/1 in the river near the diversions, while during the 197^ irrigation
season they averaged 0.15 mg/1 in Sulphur Creek. Although nitrate levels
cannot be directly compared, a similar trend can be noted.
Little data on ground water quality in the Yakima Basin exists. The
available data indicates that the water is of good quality in the deeper
aquifers and poorer in the shallow aquifers. Undoubtedly the shallow
aquifers are affected more by salts and minerals leached through the soils
by excess irrigation waters. An estimate of general ground water quality in
the basin is given in Table 6 (CH2M/Hill, 197*0.
-------
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF MAJOR DRAINS IN YAKIMA BASIN—AVERAGE VALUES FOR 1974 IRRIGATION SEASON
Measures Parameters
Sulphur
Creek at
Green
Valley Rd.
Granger
Drain at
Highway
223
Spring Creek
at
Hess Rd.
Snipes Creek
at Old
Inland
Empi re Rd.
Wilson
Creek at
Canyon
Road
Wide
Hollow
Creek at
Washington
Avenue
Moxee Drain
at
Birchfield
Road
South Dr.
at
Highway 22
Near Satus
Marion
Drain at
Highway
97
fO
Flow (cfs)
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
pH (units)
Conductivity
(Micro, mhos/cm)
Bacteria
Total Coliform
(Count/100 ml)
Fecal Col i form
(Count/100 ml)J
COD (mg/l)
Ni trogen -N
K03 + N02 (mg/l)
Kjeldahl (mg/1)
Phosphate -P
Ortho-P (mg/l)
Total P (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Turbidity (JTU)
310
13
10.0
7-6
261
28
15.2
6.8
7-7
404
3*
16.5
8.1
7-8
299
40
16.8
8.0
7-8
193
135
13.0
8.3
7-8
230
24
14.6
8.2
8.0
288
32
16.8
7. A
7-7
372
89
14.9
8.2
7.8
412
244
13-3
8.8
7.6
281
35,000
2,800
13
40,000
1,600
22
1,700
660
14
3,200
260
10
6,500
770
14
1,800
180
14
17
15
10
1.80
0.59
0.15
0.45
229
73
1.64
0.80
0.18
0.54
157
42
1.23
0.40
0.08
0.25
87
32
0.25
0.29
0.03
0.18
84
27
0.38
0.42
0.09
0.15
20
7
0.65
0.52
0.09
0.12
13
3
0.81
0.60
0.18
0.40
134
30
1.88
0.61
0.10
0.22
48
17
2.30
0.42
0.08
0.13
20
8
-------
TABLE 6. GROUND WATER QUALITY IN THE YAKIMA BASIN
OJ
Kittitas Valley
Sunnys ide-Roza
Shal low
Deep
Wapato-Satus
Shallow
Deep
Ahtanum-Moxee
Shal low
Deep
PH
7-5
7.9
7.8
--
7.7
7.3
7.9
TDS
mg/1
150
295
240
140
160
215
130
Ca
mg/1
18
48
15
22
19
28
12
Mg
mg/1
9
14
6
7.9
2.2
13
6.0
Na
mg/1
9
17
45
6,8
19
14
12
K
mg/1
2.0
7.4
10
1-9
4.1
5
3.1
HCO?
mg/T
120
190
210
113
105
150
105
S04
mg/1
1.3
44
2
5.1
0.3
16
2.5
Cl
mg/1
2.0
11
9
2.7
1.0
15
1.6
NO 3
mg/1
0.8
2.3
0.2
2.0
0.2
3.0
0.2
POj,
mg/1
0.25
0.07
0.08
—
—
— —
--
Hardness
(CaC03)
83
180
65
80
40
130
55
SOURCE: CH2M/HJ11, 1974. Characterization of Present Water Quality Conditions, Yakima Basin Water
Quality Management Plan (Draft) (January 1974).
-------
SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
As related above, municipalities and industries are the largest source
of organic wastes in the Valley. Agricultural drainage from the animal popu-
lation is also a major pollution source. Other sources of pollution include
wastes from the rural-domestic population, land use, recreation, and natural
sources (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, App 12). However, accord-
ing to Sylvester and Seabloom (1963), "Irrigation return flows were the major
factor influencing the overall water quality of the Yakima River as compared
with domestic sewage and industrial waste discharges."
Irrigation return flows comprise approximately 5 percent of the yearly
Yakima River flows in the reach from Wilson Creek, a few miles below Ellens-
burg, to Sunnyside Dam. Below Sunnyside Dam this increases to over 30 percent
In the summer months, irrigation return flows constitute about 80 percent of
the lower river (DOE, 197^b). The quality of water in the return flow drains
has already been shown in Table 5 above.
The relative contribution of nutrients from agriculture (not including
feedlots, drains and runoff from pasture land) in different subbasins of the
Valley compared to other nutrient sources is shown in Table 7. About two-
thirds of the total nitrogen present in the water at Kiona is added by irri-
gation return flows (DOE, 197^b). Except for natural loads, agriculture is
also the most important source of phosphorus. The relative contribution of
irrigation to flow, total dissolved solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus is shown
in Figure A for different locations in the river. Nitrogen and phosphorus
levels in the river increase with distance from the source and are markedly
affected by the inflow from drains. A plot of nitrate and orthophosphate
levels versus distance from the river mouth is shown in Figure 5... The
marked increase in nitrate and orthophosphate levels below Sulphur Creek
wasteway is particularly noticeable, as is the sharp increase in the nitrate
level in the river at Granger.
Nitrate-nitrogen levels in the lower Yakima River have increased six-
fold in the last twenty years (CH2M/HH1, 1975 ), and are mainly attributed
to the accelerated use of fertilizer for crop production. Phosphorus levels
are associated with high suspended sediment concentrations, as phosphates
tend to attach to soil particles. Data presented by CH2M/Hill (1975 ) indi-
cates that about 35 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare are discharged from
Sulphur Creek alone each year, and in some areas the loss of phosphate could
amount to over 45 kilograms per hectare each year.
Erosion of top soil from irrigated fields has been a problem in the
Yakima Valley for many years. In 1937, the Soil Conservation Service measurje
irrigation furrow flow and soil losses from potato lands near Ellensburg and
reported (in an unpublished document) that 20 to 75 percent of the water
applied was lost as waste water with soil losses ranging from 70 to 135 tons
per hectare (Hagan, et^ a]_., 1967). In addition, as shown in Table 8 crop-
lands in the Yakima Valley contribute 27 percent of the sediment yield while
comprising only 18 percent of the area.
-------
TABLE 7. NUTRIENT LOADS IN THE YAKIMA BASIN
SOURCE
Subbasl n
Nitrogen Load
Upper Yakima
Kittitas Valley
Upper Naqhes
Middle Yakima
Lower Yakima
TOTAL
Percent of Total
Phosphorus Load
Upper Yakima
Kittitas Valley
Upper Naches
Middle Yakima
Lower Yakima
TOTAL
Percent of Total
Natural
1*00
220
170
130
50
970
20%
32
130
150
150
4o
502
54%
Munici pal
10
60
0
230
100
400
8%
3
17
0
65
28
113
12%
Agriculture Septic
Tanks
(tons
0
170
0
210
2,800
3,180
662
0
15
0
18
105
138
15%
per year)
0
3
0
20
30
53
; n
0
3
0
20
30
53
6%
Other*
0
240
0
20
Unknown
260
5%
0
0
0
80
45
125
13%
Total
410
693
170
610
2,980
4,863
100%
35
165
150
333
248
931
100%
* Residual from mass balance calculations, and includes feedlots, dairies,
urban runoff, and runoff from grazing land.
SOURCE: Stansbury, M. and R. T. Milhous, 1975- Water Quality Aspects of
Irrigation.
45
-------
FLOW
TOTU
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTU
NITH06EN
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
MUNICIPAL 0.02
IT CLE HIM
AT ROZA OAK
AT SUNNfSIDE DAN
AT KIONA
IIMICIPAl 0.2
I Rill BAT ION 9
NUNICIPAL 0.1
IIIIUTION 4
IUNICIPAL 0.3
•UNICIPAL 0.9
MUNICIPAL 7
-------
I BO
I
160
I
MO
i
120 100
RIVER MILE
r
80
I
BO
I
40
-1.2
i-I.O
- 0.6 =
-0.18
-0.15
-0.12
- O.OB
— 0.06
- 0.03
J- 0
20
LEGEND
ORTHO PHOSPHITE
- NITRITE
CHLOROPHYLL A
Figure 5- Variations in nitrate, orthophosphate and chlorophyll
A in the Yakima River in August 1973.
-------
TABLE 8. GENERALIZED SEDIMENT YIELD BY COVER AND LAND USE
(Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission,
Appendix VII I, 1971).
Cover and
Land Use
Cropland
Forest Land
Range Land
Other Land
Land Area
1,000 Percent
Acres
686.3 18
1,508.9 39
1,534.8 40
121.4 3
Sediment
Ac-Ft/Year
141
202
158
21
Yield
Percent
27
39
30
4
TOTAL 3,851.4 100 522 100
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares. 1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
PROBLEMS DUE TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Nutrients
The concentration of the plant nutrients (nitrates and soluble phosphate)
in the river is not high enough to have an adverse effect on crops or soils
when used for irrigation. The harmful effects relate to the resulting stimu-
lation of aquatic plant growth. Heavy growths of plankton and higher forms of
aquatic plants are found in the river from Wilson Creek to the mouth. The
photosynthesis and respirational activities of the organisms cause a wide
diurnal fluctuation in several water quality parameters, including dissolved
oxygen, pH and alkalinity (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, 1972).
The uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus by algae in the river was shown
graphically in an earlier Figure (5). The data are averages of all samples
taken at each location. Chlorophyll A is a measure of the amount of algae in
the water body. The figure indicates that as nitrogen and phosphorus concen-
trations increase, Chlorophyll A also increases. In the lower reaches of the
river, below mile 55, the chlorophyll continues to increase while the nutri-
ents decrease. This indicates that the algae continues to utilize nutrients
after major inputs decrease. The last major return flow is at about mile 60
(USDA, 1974).
As nitrogen and phosphorus are taken up by algae, the plants may remain
in the system as bottom deposits or may be contained in floating mosses and,
consequently, not measured in the water samples. Hence, nutrient concentra-
tions could be higher than recorded. These floating mosses are aesthetically
objectionable as well as requiring constant cleaning from screens at irriga-
tion canal intakes. As they die off in late summer, they reduce the dis-
solved oxygen content, causing a deterioration of the fish habitat. The com-
bination of lower dissolved oxygen content and other development-related
effects has caused the present anadromous fish runs to decline to only four
percent of their pre-1890 levels (Bell and Mar, 1974). Prior to the
48
-------
settlement of the Yakima Valley, the river was one of the most Important fish
producers in the Columbia River system.
Sediment
According to Carlile (1972), sediment pollution has become an ever-
worsening problem in downstream diversion canals and in the Yakima River it-
self. Canal water receiving irrigation return flows often carrie? such a
heavy sediment load that untreated water is unsuitable for irrigation. Some
farmers have constructed desilting basins in an attempt to remove enough of
the particulate matter to render the water fit for use. However, only a por-
tion of the sediment can be removed and the remainder still causes serious
problems in pumps, sprinkler heads and pipes. It is indeed ironic that,
because of sediment pollution and the associated problems, many farmers are
reluctant to convert from furrow to sprinkler irrigation. At the same time,
total conversion to sprinkler irrigation would be a major step toward alle-
viating sediment pollution.
Economic consequences of sediment pollution are now being felt by cities
and counties throughout the Yakima Valley. Benton County, located in the
lower region of the Valley, spends upwards of $50,000 per year to remove sed-
iment from road ditches and bridge approaches. City residents are faced with
the task of replacing sprinkler heads and flushing pipelines day after day
when using irrigation water to keep lawns green and gardens blooming. Pumps
have to be torn down and cleaned and city officials are faced with the never-
ending task of hauling silt from flush points in the city irrigation system.
Coupled with impaired recreational and aesthetic values, public reaction
against sediment pollution in the Yakima Valley has reached the point where
Interim measures are needed to combat the existing problem until improved
water and land management practices can be implemented (Carlile, 1972).
In addition to the costs of sediment removal mentioned by Carlile above,
$65,000 per year is spent in removing sediment from drains in the Sulphur
Creek drainage and $50,000 per year in the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.
Cost figures from other districts are unavailable.
The amount of sediment reaching the drains is only a small fraction of
the total soil movement on the1 farm. The end of the irrigation furrow is the
point where both runoff and soil loss are less than anywhere else along the
furrow (Mech and Smith, 1967). Hence, the true economic consequences of sedi-
ment loss are difficult to gauge, as they must include the loss in productiv-
ity on the individual farms and the extra cost of fertilizer to compensate
for nutrients lost.
FUTURE WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
About 205,000 hectares are presently irrigated in the Yakima Valley, with
an average annual diversion of 1,,500 millimeters per hectare. According to
the Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study (Pacific
Northwest River Basin Commission, App 12, 1971), irrigated acreage is projected
to increase to 223,000 hectares by 1980, 231,000 hectares by 2000 and 247,000
-------
hectares by 2020, the last being an increase of over 40,000 hectares from the
present. However, an economic evaluation of potential irrigation development
by the Washington State University Agricultural Research Center (1972) indi-
cates that only 15,000 hectares hold high promise for future irrigation devel-
opment and that this land would be irrigated with water from the Columbia
River.
Irrespective of which projected figure is ultimately substantiated,
careful consideration of future irrigation developments will be required to
evaluate the impact on overall water quality. There is a potential for det-
rimental effects from increases in silt, fertilizers, pesticides, salt, and
temperature in the return flow water. In addition, there is a potential
problem of ground water buildup and of associated problems.
Water supply for any future development must be accomplished without
reducing minimum stream flows. If the diversion rate were reduced, through
the expanded use of more efficient methods of irrigation, to say 1,000 mm
for the 247,000 hectares projected to be developed by 2020, the total diver-
sion in the Valley would be 2,468 million cubic meters per year, or less if
some of the land was irrigated by Columbia River water. This is less than
the present diversion. Not only would more water remain in the river for
assimilation of waste loads and for support of fish life, but the quantity
of lower quality return flows would be reduced. Therefore, if the methods
of conveyance, distribution and application of water improve as anticipated,
water quality should also improve. The rate of improvement will depend on
the rapidity with which these methods are implemented.
Given these basic physical parameters, limitations or constraints of the
system, we need to concentrate on the causes of the problem, following which
potential solutions and implementation strategies can be delineated.
50
-------
SECTION 6
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
The purpose of this section is to identify the variety of causes of irri-
gation return flow pollution in the Yakima Valley. The major sources of the
problem have already been identified; this section seeks to determine further
the basic physical,- economic, legal, and social conditions which contribute
to the problem of water quality degradation. By identifying the roots of the
problem, it will, then, be possible to develop solutions that deal with the
causative factors, rather than merely referring to symptoms. Ultimately,
potential solutions with such an approach will be more effective for imple-
menting efforts.
PHYSICAL CAUSES
There are practically but two modes of irrigation. The first is
called the furrow system—the other the flooding. By the former
either a rolling or flat country can be watered, by the latter
only comparatively level land can be served. By means of fur-
row, hills sloping at an angle of 30° have been successfully
watered. To prepare the ground for the furrow system all brush
and large stones should be removed, small knolls and hummocks
cut down, the low places filled and the ground brought to a
level or even slope. To the highest point of the land to be
irrigated a lateral is run from the main ditch or canal. From
this lateral a head ditch is constructed, following the highest
contour of the land. From the head ditch, receiving its water
from the lateral, small /furrows are run with an Implement re-
sembling the corn marker of the New England farmer. These fur-
rows on level tracts are run in straight and parallel lines.
Where a side hill is to be watered, the furrows are run prac-
tically parallel and upon contours. From the head ditch the
water is let into the furrows by means of square wooden pipes
constructed out of lath, and with such openings as to carry
in the neighborhood of one square inch of water without pres-
sure. This inch of water will follow a furrow and oftentimes
successfully irrigate a stretch half a mile long by three feet
wide, or over one-third of an acre (Washington Irrigation Com-
pany, 1902).
The practices quoted in the brochure of the Washington Irrigation Com-
pany describe the state of irrigation technology in 1902, in an area of
limited experience with irrigation. Unfortunately, the form of irrigation
51
-------
described above has changed little over the ensuing three-quarters of a cent-
ury. Thus, the use of furrow irrigation on steep slopes is the primary
physical cause of irrigation return flow quality problems in the Yakima Valley
today. The flooding mode (level basin irrigation) is now little used, indic-
ative perhaps of the absence of level land.
The soils of the Yakima River Basin, as described earlier, are predom-
inantly of fine sandy loam or silt loam of variable depth, usually underlain
with gravel or decomposed basalt. The soils are highly erodible when dis-
turbed. The clearing of the native vegetation from the Valley soils, their
cultivation and the application of irrigation water down their prevailing
slope has caused much of the topsoil to be washed to the river. As a con-
sequence, adsorbed phosphate ions have also been carried to the river in
large quantities.
Although the problems associated with the predominant method of irriga-
tion could be overcome to some extent by careful management, the inherent
limitations of the method make complete control of runoff and erosion diffi-
cult. Some of the more conscientious farmers have endeavored to farm across
the slope and to reduce furrow stream size, but these are few. With the
abundance of inexpensive water, there is little incentive for more intensive
water control. The move to sprinkler irrigation has been motivated more by
the possibility of labor savings rather than water quality considerations.
In general, the management of the irrigation system is not well suited
to the soil and topographic conditions, at least not from a water quality
standpoint. Streams of excessive flow rate are turned into the furrows, so
that erosive velocities prevail over a considerable portion of the furrow.
At the end of the furrow, the tailwater drain is often at a lower elevation
than the invert of the furrow, so that furrow stream velocites increase with
consequent incision at the end of the furrow. The tailwater drains them-
selves, running across slope without vegetative protection, often erode.
In addition to the contribution of sediment and phosphates to the return
flow, caused by these practices, the contribution of nitrates is also largely
influenced by management practices. Given the nature of furrow irrigation,
deep percolation over at least part of the field is virtually impossible to
prevent. Whenever furrow irrigation is practiced and whenever nitrogenous
fertilizers are used, a portion of the water soluble nitrates will be leached
from the soil profile and returned to the stream. In many instances, this is
abetted by the overapplication of fertilizer, often to compensate for
the amount anticipated to be leached. All in all, poor irrigation practices
combine with poor fertilizer practices to cause further pollution of the
Yakima River.
ECONOMIC CAUSES
The major economic causes of irrigation return flow pollution in the
Yakima River are: 1) the absence of a market for allocating irrigation water;
and 2) the opportunity for farmers to pass on to downstream water users part
of their costs of production in the form of pollution.
52
-------
Lack of a Market
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 value use; and its relatively
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 production process.
The result is an overapplication of water with associated return flow pollu-
tion.
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 variables.
In general, the amount of return flow pollution appears to be positively
correlated with the per acre (hectare) quantity of irrigation water applied,
and negatively correlated with the management of irrigation water, as shown
in Figure 6 (a). As water is applied beyond the consumptive use require-
ments of the crop (c.u.), return flow pollution 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 rela-
tionship depends upon the level of water management, so that curve A corres-
ponds with a low level of management and curve B with a higher level. The
actual slope and shape of these curves will vary between differing areas with
different physical conditions. Site-specific investigations are required to
derive exact relationships; however, Figure 6 (a) serves as a general prin-
ciple in order to i 1 lustrate ,the general conceptual relationship.
Water in the Yakima Valley is allocated according to a modification of
the Appropriation Doctrine. The system of water rights established by the
state water code provides for the acquisition of a right to use water on the
basis of prior appropriation and beneficial use. While the Washington Code
authorizes changes in users, places used, types of use, and points of diver-
sion without loss of priority of right—provided that no injury occurs to
other existing rights—a number of impediments exist which effectively pre-
clude such transfers in the Yakima Valley.
The non-injury limitation on changes severely restricts the potential
for transfers under the state code whenever holders of existing rights are
dependent upon return flows in order to exercise their right. That is, in
order to have a market allocation of water, there must be a clear understand-
ing on the part of both buyers and sellers to the exact nature of the property
being exchanged. Given the high degree of hydrologic uncertainties in the
53
-------
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) Fanner
Figure 6. Present irrigation/pollution relation.
-------
Valley, clearly defined property rights do not exist. Moreover, the trans-
action costs of determining whether injury will occur or not are potentially
so large as to create an additional impediment to market transactions.
Within Bureau of Reclamation districts, repayment contracts with farmers
generally limit the place of water use to the lands classified as irrigable
within the district boundaries and, thus, restrict transfers outside the
boundaries. Moreover, districts have a disincentive to invest in more effi-
cient uses of water and water recovery operations, since such additions to
their supply would simply reduce the amount of water delivered from the
Bureau. Districts would, therefore, not have this additional water either
for irrigating new lands within the district or to market elsewhere and addi-
tional revenue would not be generated to offset the costs of any efficiency
measures undertaken.
The importance of district by-laws related to transferring of water are
exemplified by those in the Roza Irrigation District. In this context:
The first three acre-feet per acre may be transferred by the
owner of the appurtenant acreage thereof, to another delivery,
PROVIDED: l) the acreage to which the same is transferred is
in fact farmed by the transferror as the bonafide owner or
leasee thereof for the year in which the transfer is to be
effective; and 2) written instructions are filed with the
district and approved by its manager or secretary. Water
rights cannot be transferred.
The effect of this regulation is that a water user is free to distribute
his total supply to the area under his control, but he cannot sell any portion
of his supply to another water user. Most of the other irrigation districts
within the Yakima Basin follow a similar policy relating to water transfers.
An interesting exception is the Yakima Tieton District because it uses a mar-
ket system to allocate water rights within the district boundaries. The dis-
trict's water supply is divided into shares, each share equaling 2,973 cubic
meters (2.41 acre-feet). These shares may be freely bought and sold subject
only to the ability to deliver the water to the prospective buyer. There are
currently 31,^30 shares held by individuals with 80 shares held by the dis-
trict as a safety margin on total supply. The district manager estimated
that the current market price of a share was between $500 and $600. Annual
water allotments are subject to the restriction that they may be temporarily
transferred only to lands under the same ownership and on the same ditch.
Thus, although the district handles up to thirty transfers of water rights
each year, those transfers tend to be of small quantities, closing out the
water right on a small, inefficient piece of land and adding that water right
to a larger irrigated acreage.
In general, then, water allocation in the Yakima Valley is accomplished
by a variety of legal mechanisms. With few exceptions, the market plays no
role in the water allocation process. Even where transfer of water rights is
possible, it is not possible to transfer portions of the annual allotment
except among lands under the same ownership.
55
-------
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
in Figure 6. (b), S[_, under the present institutional arrangement, is a hori-
zontal line at the level of the conveyance cost, P|_, out to the total quantity
of water available for use, Q_|_. At QL, the supply curve becomes vertical.
That is, the relation between the amount of irrigation water supplied and the
price of that water is a horizontal line at the level of the constant cost of
conveyance up to the limit of supply, beyond which no additional water is
supplied at any price.
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
the river basin increases, the market demand curve in Figure 6. (b) shifts
outward until D|_ is reached. 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 6. (c), the
individual farmer will rationally demand qj_ units 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 qj_ units per acre of irrigation
water. If the level of water management corresponds with curve B in Figure
6. (a), then the present allocation system results in an irrigation return
flow pollution level of S|_ units per acre.
On the other hand, a market allocation of water would reduce individual
farm applications of water and, consequently, return flow pollution. Suppose
a water rental market is created such that non-water right holders could rent
water from those with water rights without jeopardizing those rights—
conditions which will be justified later. Then 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 7- (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 non-
right holders. The equilibrium quantity, QR, represents the amount of water
right holders would rent to non-right holders.
Individual water right holders would adjust to the rental market equil-
ibrium price, PR, by reducing the quantity of water irrigated from q|_ to qR.
That is, water right holders could realize a greater return from their right
to qj_ units of water per acre by reducing their irrigation to qR units per
acre and renting the surplus (q|_ " q^) units per acre. The derived demand
for irrigation water with a rental market, d^, differs from the present de-
mand curve, d[_7 in that it is horizontal at the market price level beyond
q^, as shown in Figure 7. (c).
If non-right holders are assumed to have identical irrigation demand
curves to those with water rights, d|_, then each non-right holder will also
rationally use qR units of water per acre at a rental market equilibrium
price of PR. The effect on irrigation return flow pollution is that each
56
-------
Pollution Level
(units/acre)
0 c.u. qR qL
Quantity of Water
(units/acre)
(a) Pollution Function
Price
($)
Price
($)
Quantity of Water
(total units)
(b) Market
Quantity of Water
(units/acre)
(c) Fanner
Figure 7. Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market.
57
-------
farmer would cause SR rather than S|_ units of pollution per acre, as shown in
Figure 7- (a). On the other hand, there are more irrigators. The net effect
of the rental market depends upon the ratio of the proportional increase in
the number of irrigators to the proportional decrease in the pollution of each
irrigator. If the ratio is less than one, then total pollution is expected to
decline.
Externalities
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, however, he may select production
methods and techniques which are low cost to himself, but polluting to down-
stream water users. Alternative production methods and techniques may be less
polluting but are of a higher cost to the farmer. By selecting the lowest
cost methods and techniques, the farmer passes on part of the costs of produc-
tion to downstream water users in the form of water pollution. It is difficult
at this point to provide an inclusive discussion of this type of economic
cause of return flow pollution because of the diverse nature of its occurrence.
How costs are externalized, however, can be illustrated in several cases for
the Yakima Valley.
One of the most striking initial observations of the research team in
the Yakima Valley was the common practice of furrow irrigating down the slope
of the land rather than contouring. Especially where slopes are steep, this
practice is a major contributor to rapid water runoff and sediment pickup.
In a relatively short period of time, this practice may wash away large
amounts of top soil as well as the crops themselves, thus reducing the farm-
er's production. Why then does the farmer pursue such a practice? He does
it because he not only desires to maximize revenues, but also minimize costs.
More precisely, he wants to maximize the difference between revenues and
costs. The farmer is, thus, acting rationally when he calculates that his
profit will be greater if he adopts an easier and less costly practice of
irrigating with the slope rather than across it. In so doing, however, he
externalizes part of his production costs, which are subsequently borne by
downstream farmers in the form of increased repair costs for pumps and
sprinkler heads, and by recreationists in the form of aesthetic degradation
of the river as well as reduced fisheries. If the upstream farmer were to
internalize these costs, he might opt for higher cost but less polluting
irrigation techniques.
Tenant farmers may also externalize some costs of production onto the
landlords. As stated in Section k, Yakima Valley has a significant amount
of irrigated land owned by absentee landlords. Tenants of these lands have
a relatively short time perspective regarding the use of the land which usu-
ally corresponds with the duration of their lease. Again, the tenant farmer
may rationally maximize his short-run profits by extending part of his costs
of production. Such a cost is associated with the long-run maintenance of
the land. By adopting irrigation practices which avoid these maintenance
costs, tenants pass on part of their production costs to the landowner in
the form of soil erosion and loss of topsoi1 and to downstream water users
in the form of water pollution.
58
-------
LEGAL CAUSES
Under the American system of jurisprudence, the law Is considered to be
the socially acceptable mechanism to direct and control the activities of man
in areas where conflict or need exist. Natural resources and water resources
particularly have been subject to extensive legislative and judicial inter-
vention in the attempts of man to guarantee dependability, flexibility and
equity into the public and private use of the resources. Often, however,
either the law lags behind social demands or it is designed to protect certain
rights and privileges in conflict with those held by others. Such a situation
can also arise from changing external circumstances and from the ensuing cul-
tural lag between established practices and current conditions.
Water law, in an era of rapid social changes and of shifting emphasis to
public rights and environmental concerns, is full of constraints to public
interests in water quantity and quality management. In the area of irrigation
return flow, the legal contributions to the quality control problems vary from
state to state as the laws differ in each particular area. In Washington, and
specifically in Yakima Valley, a number of basic legal causes of water pollu-
tion can be identified.
The first cause is universal throughout the 17 western states, namely,
the failure to enforce the concept of beneficual use provisions of the law.
The reason is twofold. One has to do with the fact that the definition of
beneficial use is nebulous and, thus, lacks appropriate direction for admin-
istrators to follow or courts to interpret. The second derives from a lack
of social consciousness on the part of water users so that the burden of
proving nonbeneficial use is upon the state, which is really an administrative
Impossibility. Generally, our system of water law places emphasis upon the
right to use water, not the duty to use ?t appropriately.
Constraints to water transfers also contribute to the problem by provid-
ing a disincentive to use water more efficiently on other lands or other uses.
Water rights can be transferred with the approval of the DOE and under con-
ditions to protect the vested interests of other water right holders. The
restrictions of privately transferring the right to use water in federal
reclamation projects exists under federal law based on the theory that the
project was designed to irrigate X acres with Y acre-feet of water and to
irrigate other or more acres will decrease some of the productivity per farm
unit, provide economic benefit at taxpayers' expense, or jeopardize the fol-
lowing years' carry-over water supply. Consequently, in the irrigation
districts of Yakima Valley, the district can reallocate the water held under
water rights, but individuals cannot sell their water supply.
Finally, another legal problem that exists is the absence of specific
responsibility or duty for water quality control by the irrigation districts.
Their function is primarily to capture and convey their entitled water sup-
ply to district water users. This problem is amplified by the lack of a
legal requirement for water quality maintenance by the Bureau of Reclamation
in its repayment contract with the irrigation districts.
59
-------
SOCIAL CAUSES
The problem of water quality exists in a social setting because either
the members of this particular social environment do not perceive the problem
per se, because they cannot do anything about the problem, or because they
refuse to do anything about the problem. A combination of all three conditions
exists in the Yakima Valley, reinforcing in turn the problematic state of
affairs outlined previously. The search for social causes in water pollution
can be traced at either the individual farmer level or at the organizational
level, i.e., to those entities involved and responsible with irrigation man-
agement.
The Individual Level
At the individual level, there are three general categories under which
the problematic conditions mentioned above can further accentuate problems of
water quality: 1) individual perception of the problem; 2) the actual irri-
gation activity pursued by the farmer; and 3) the perception of the farmer
regarding his relationship with his neighbors in terms of water quality. In
essence, how individual users fit into these categories of concern will
largely determine how the problem is to be defined and, then, coped with.
As a whole, there is no general appreciation by the farmers of the signi-
ficance of the present problem involving irrigation return flow quality. The
greatest concern is expressed by those who are being directly affected by
pplluted water. Yet, even these farmers will continue to utilize irrigation
methods that continue to aggravate the problem. There is the common percep-
tion that the farmer has the right to use his water in a virtually uncon-
strained manner. In this regard, one specific source of the pollution problem
is the overapplication of water; yet, farmers on the whole do not believe that
they are using too much water. They use their full allotment of water in
order to maintain a reserve for the dry years that they "know" will come
along in the future (and which presently are in their midst). In addition,
when there is extra water to be sold, even though it is at a higher price,
the farmers will buy that water and utilize it in the same inefficient manner.
The perception of the problem of water quality is just beginning to become an
issue of public concern but responses are only now beginning to emerge.
The second category describing social conditions encouraging the problem
situation is the actual irrigation activity pursued by the farmer. The criti-
cal point in this area of concern is that the farmers perceive, and right-
fully so, that there is going to be a certain amount of degradation in the
water quality by the mere fact that the water is simply being utilized. How-
ever, the amount of degradation that is acceptable is open to debate and
subject to various interpretations. In fact, farmers were not all that con-
cerned with water quality until very recently when the SCS initiated the
Sulphur Creek Project ajild results demonstrated the character and extent of
water pollution.
This situation is compounded by the obvious fact that many farmers value
their old ways of irrigating. Many farmers perceive, whether correctly or
incorrectly, that sprinkler irrigation (one of the more efficient forms of
60
-------
water use) is not applicable to their particular situation. In addition, a
new irrigation method--trickle--was introduced into the Valley improperly and,
thus, failed on many farms. The lack of success of this demonstration project
was quite significant for the creation of a background of testing innovations.
Trickle is starting to spread again, but unsuccessful past experiences tend to
reinforce entrenched methods of irrigation as the appropriate way of conduct-
ing business in the Valley.
In addition to the specific form of irrigating, there are also many dif-
ferent ways to apply those forms, be they good or bad. A sprinkler system
can be just as detrimental to water quality as a furrow method if it is admin-
istered poorly. It has been reported that on many of the larger operations
the irrigation methods are poor due to the fact that these farms either do not
employ enough irrigators or the ones that they do employ are poor irrigators
to start with. The results are the same and the manner in which these farmers
irrigate becomes detrimental to the meeting of adequate water quality stand-
ards. However, the question then arises as to what types of practice are
detrimental to water quality and under what conditions they become detrimental.
This is the crux of the problem: there has been no common way to measure an
acceptable Irrigation practice with regard to water quality. In its absence,
conflicting or competing interpretations create a general atmosphere of dis-
trust as to results or as to the need of alternative strategies.
This leads to the third major category of conditions that may facilitate
water quality problems: the perception of the farmer regarding his relation-
ship with his neighbors in terms of water quality. In short, there seems to
be a lack of cooperation among the farmers regarding water quality. The major
concern that most of the farmers have is with what happens to the water on
their own farms. Suits have been filed against one another, indicating in an
indirect manner the lack of "regional" concern over water quality and water
use. Similarly, there is a lack of overall participation in the district
management of water by the majority of users. Related to this situation is
also the common perception that only 5 percent of the users are major pollut-
ers. Even though there is a widespread belief among users that it is this
"other" 5 percent responsible for water quality woes, the research team has
not seen any documentation on how such a figure has evolved or what is the
basis for such a belief. Under such conditions, it is obvious that problems
of irrigation return flow are 'currently perceived as of a narrow individual-
istic matter resulting from particular water practices and not as a matter
requiring a regional basis of understanding.
The Organizational Level
Regarding the organizational entities involved with irrigation, two
categories seem to be critical with regard to water quality problems in irri-
gation return flow: the integration of those organizations and their respect-
ive authority with regard to irrigation quality. It is within such an organ-
izational structure that standards of behavior regarding alleviation of
irrigation return flow problems can be established, which in turn can con-
tribute to a change of prevailing perceptions by individual users regarding
the nature and extent of the problem.
61
-------
The integration of these organizations is based heavily on the degree
and type of communication existing between them. In the Yakima Valley, there
is little communication between the irrigation districts, and most of it was
started a few years ago. The same situation exists between the districts and
the farmers. In fact, many farmers interviewed did not know the members of
the board of control that looks over their irrigation district. Where there
is need for the greatest communication possible, present linkages are weak at
best.
Information that does reach down to the grass roots level is also
selectively distributed. Knowledge of P.L. 92-500 rests on a few individuals.
There is one individual who knows the law extremely well and he is the local
opinion leader with regard to irrigation water quality. He has the ability to
sway the local people as to their perceptions of water quality according to
how he sees the law. As an influential "gatekeeper," he provides the ultimate
interpretation of what is the "problem" and what solutions, if any, are needed.
Coupled with the general amount of information distributed is the fact
that many farmers cannot transfer basic information regarding farm management
procedures to their farms for practical use. Finally, the means to achieve
irrigation control, when attempted, runs into financing problems with either
not enough funds or with an improper method of allocating those funds. For
instance, the Agricultural Conservation Program funds are allocated on a
congressional calendar and not on a farmers' calendar, which means that those
funds cannot be utilized at the best possible time.
In short, the communication and integration networks involving the vari-
ous organizations working with irrigation return flow quality are not satis-
factory in that the quantity of information distributed and the destination of
that information are not being fully exploited or appropriately utilized.
In addition to the integration of the various organizations in the
Valley, a second important differentiation has to do with, the type of author-
ity regarding implementation of water quality control measures. In the
Yakima Valley, this issue of authority is a hotly debated item. As indicated
previously, irrigation districts in the Valley see their authority ending at
the farmer's headgate while the DOE states that they do indeed have authority
over water management on the farm. Due to the position of the administrators
of the various districts—that of being elected by the farmers themselves—
this question of authority is indeed a sensitive one. Not wanting to upset
the status quo and, thereby, jeopardize their jobs and positions, the admin-
istrators of the irrigation districts are not going to readily accept any
program that demands them being enforcers of water quality standards.
This question of not utilizing one's full authority involves also the
DOE. The agency's priority is on voluntary change that will enhance water
quality through programs, educational facilities, along with other "positive"
reinforcements. Administrators in DOE view enforcement as a last resort meas-
ure. The big question regarding one's authority is not only whether one
actually has it but also how is that authority to be implemented. These ques-
tions as well as others, such as, should the laws be tougher so as not to
allow violations of the 160-acre limitation as easily as they do now, roust be
62
-------
clarified if any meaningful water quality program is to be initiated. As of
now, there is focused uncertainty regarding whether organizational authority
allows the thrust of any new program to be undermined by having its energy
dissipated in areas of concern that are related to water quality control but
which, at the same time, are not directly related to the solving of those
problems in an efficient and effective manner.
Having described, then, the nature and causes of problems concerning the
quality of irrigation return flow, we should turn our attention to potential
solutions with the help of which a coherent process of implementing legal
imperatives can be accomplished.
63
-------
SECTION 7
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
The purpose here is to identify potential solutions to the irrigation
return flow problem in the Yakima Valley. In the framework of the approach
established, these solutions are initially identified with respect to the
particular causes of the problem as specified in the previous section. This
section concludes with a brief discussion of possible combinations of indi-
vidual solutions that could deal simultaneously with several of the physical,
economic, legal, and social causes of the problem.
PHYSICAL SOLUTIONS
A comprehensive review of alternative technological solutions to irriga-
tion return flow quality problems in the Yakima Valley has been presented by
CH2M/Hill, Consulting Engineers of Bellvue, Washington, in their report
"Agricultural Return Flow Management in the State of Washington," of April
1975- Much of the information on technical solutions that follows has been
drawn from that report and supplemented where appropriate. Costs are of a
preliminary nature, with capital costs considering only labor and materials
and annual costs considering operation and maintenance, including power, but
not amortization of capital unless specified.
Water Delivery Subsystem
Improvements in distribution systems would increase the efficiency of
these systems and permit a reduction in the amount of water diverted. More
water would be available for instream uses and for assimilating the present
waste load. A reduction in the quantity of irrigation return flow would
also be achieved.
Irrigation system improvements would prevent wastage of water from the
system due to seepage and operational spills. Nearly all canals and laterals
in the Valley are unlined. Lining or piping would reduce losses due to seep-
age and phreatophyte consumption. Additional check structures, or a regrad-
ing of canals, would allow gravity diversion heads to be maintained without
filling the canals with excess water, ultimately to be wasted. Automated
controls would prevent operational wastage at those times when district
personnel are not on hand. Lining, construction of control structures and
regrading could be carried out conjunctively.
The lining of laterals, or conversion to pipelines, would not only reduce
seepage and consequently subsurface return flows, but would also be beneficial
6k
-------
in providing additional water control. Another important aspect of water con-
trol is providing flow measuring devices, particularly at diversion points
along each lateral and at each farm inlet. Additional water control would
allow a significant improvement in farm irrigation application efficiencies.
Most of the existing delivery systems divert from the river many miles
upstream of the point of need. Much of this water could be left in the river
for a considerably greater portion of its length by diverting from a lower
location. In particular, areas located across the river and served by siphons
could be served by pumping stations at the siphon location. Hydraulic tur-
bines could be replaced by pumps to further reduce wastage from the system.
The costs of such pumping plants could be compared with the costs of canal
lining in order to evaluate whether or not this is a viable alternative.
Reuse of irrigation return flows on an irrigation district basis could
be adopted to recover water, soil and fertilizer that otherwise would add to
the pollution load of the river. Waste water could be pumped to canals or
laterals for use further down in the system. This occurs to some extent at
the present, with return flows from higher irrigation districts augmenting
the flow in the canals of lower districts or units of the same district.
The use of ground water in conjunction with surface water supplied would
allow a reduction in surface water deliveries, thereby maintaining a larger
flow in the river. In many areas in the Valley, the high ground water levels
are a direct result of irrigation. The ground water could be pumped to adja-
cent canals and laterals during mid-summer when water supplies in the river
are diminished, effectively moving the point of diversion further down the
stream.
During the early part of the irrigation season, flows in the river gener-
ally exceed the irrigation requirements as well as providing an abundant flow
for fish life. Seasonal runoff could be more evenly distributed by providing
additional storage capacity on upstream reaches of the river. Summer flows
could be maintained at an adequate level to provide a suitable habitat for
fishlife.
On-Farm Subsystem ,
The earlier discussion on the effect of irrigation on the river's water
quality has already shown that irrigation was a major cause of water quality
degradation in the Valley. As would be expected, within the irrigation system
the use of water on the farm is the major cause of degradation. This degrada-
tion could be alleviated by improving water application methods and practices
in order to reduce both surface and subsurface return flows, thereby control-
ling erosion and in conjunction with modified fertilizer practices, reducing
nitrates and salt loads in subsurface return flows in the Yakima River.
Improved water application techniques and scheduling of irrigation apol?-
cations would allow a reduction in the amount of water delivered to the farm .
Surface methods of irrigation on light soils require that an excess of water
65
-------
be applied at one point in the field to ensure that the minimum crop require-
ment is supplied at another. The higher uniformity of more efficient irriga-
tion methods allows water applications to match plan't consumption more closely.
Two of the most common application methods for reduction in the quantity
of applied water are sprinkler and trickle irrigation. Both methods can oper-
ate at high efficiencies on light soils (i.e., a high percentage of water
diverted to the farm is used by the crops). The amount of applied water can
be controlled so that deep percolation losses are comparable to the leaching
requirement necessary for maintaining a salt balance in the root zone. Bene-
fits accrue to the farmer from savings in fertilizer and soil that would
otherwise be eroded from the land. The quantity of water handled is also
reduced. Water quality is enhanced by the elimination of soil from the sur-
face drainage water and fertilizer from both surface and subsurface drainage
flows. The district benefits from the reduction in ground water buildup in
many instances has led to the necessity of artificially draining waterlogged
areas.
Recirculation-of irrigation tailwater on individual farms could also be
used to salvage water and nutrients. The surface irrigation runoff could be
collected in a tailwater pond and pumped back to the head of the irrigation
field or to an adjacent field for reuse.
Irrigation scheduling allows the optimum quantities of water to be
applied at the optimum time intervals to conserve water and maximize economic
returns. Farm returns are increased from the reduced quantity of water han-
dled, reduced leaching of plant nutrients and erosion of topsoil, and from the
reduced incidence of plant diseases associated with waterlogged soils. The
reduction in soil and nutrients lost from the farm also benefits water
gualitv.
A reduction in the amount of sediment leaving the farm can be accomp-
lished in two wavs: 1) by preventing erosion in the first place; or 2) by
preventing eroded sediment from reaching the drains. In addition to the means
discussed above for preventing erosion, contour plowing also offers a possi-
bility. Where steeper lands are used for row crops, the rows may be plowed
to more closely fit the contours of the land, thereby reducing velocities and
erosion potential. With furrows across the slopes, the tailwater drains must
of necessity be down the slope. The increased ootential for erosion i.n the
tailwater drains would have to be countered by using either a collector pipe
at the end of the field or by grassing the tailwater drain. Considerable
erosion which occurs in many tailwater drains at present could be reduced by
these means. To prevent sediment from reaching the drainage ways, sediment
ponds may be constructed at the lowest point in the field. The recovered
sediments may be spread back on the ffeld at the'end of each season, although
this is a very expensive operation.
Fertilizer applied to the soil in excess of crop requirements represents
an economic loss to the farmer and degrades the quality of streams receiving
return flow water. Both losses can fae reduced by using soil analyses to
determine the correct amount of fertilizer to apply, by timing applications
to reduce the time available for fertilizers to be leached from the soil, and
66
-------
by placing the fertilizer where it is readily available to the roots. How-
ever, the most expedient means for achieving high fertilizer use efficiency
is to adopt improved water management practices which provide high irrigation
application efficiencies.
Return Flow Subsystem
Sediment and nutrients can be removed from return flows by settlement
which may be accomplished by either slowing velocities or retaining the water
completely. Velocities could be slowed in the drains by reconstructing them
with a wider section and a flatter gradient and providing drop structures
where necessary. The drain bed and banks could be grassed for greater retard-
ation of flows. Alternatively, settlement could be achieved by routing return
flows through treatment ponds with sufficient time of retention to precipitate
sediment and remove nutrients. In both cases, sediment would have to be
periodically removed, and in the case of settlement for nutrient removal, the
aquatic vegetation would have to be periodically harvested. To decrease the
time of detention for sediment removal, and hence reduce the size of pond
required, chemical additives may be necessary to facilitate sediment
flocculati on.
More advanced treatment could be considered for the removal of phosphorus,
nitrogen, bacteria, and salts. Advanced treatment methods have been developed
in recent years for the removal of nitrates. The two nitrate removal treat-
ment methods to be considered are algal stripping and denitrification. Also,
advances in the treatment of saline water have been made in recent years;
however, the problem of large flows and low salinity concentrations in the
Yakima Valley would make desalination of return flows extremely expensive
and not economically feasible.
ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS
With reference to the major economic cause of irrigation return flow
pollution outlined previously, there are two respective economic solutions:
1) establishment of a market for irrigation water; and 2) internalization of
production costs through taxes and/or subsidies.
Water Rental Market
A market for irrigation water can take many forms. The intent here is
to identify that form which appears to be the most applicable and implement-
able. While the establishment of a water market will alter the present
institutional arrangement, it seems desirable from a practical standpoint to
alter that arrangement as little as possible in order to assure its acceptance.
In order to minimize disruption of the present institutional arrange-
ments for allocating irrigation water, the market form identified as having
the most potential is a water rental market. Under such an arrangement, a
water rental market would accept the present structure of water rights and
allotments and would permit the rental of surplus water to the water users
without jeopardizing these rights and allotments.
67
-------
A water rental market could be established by removing the present legal
and physical uncertainties associated with such transfers. The hydrologic
properties of the water system would require more de'tailed specification.
This is largely due to the need to satisfy legal requirements that transfers
not injure other water rights. Transfers might be restricted to the amount
previously used consumptively; however, it is possible that a more detailed
hydrologic specification of the system would show that with a large number of
both upstream and downstream transfers that negative effects of transfers
would be canceled by positive effects.
The demand for rental water would represent the water's addition to the
total value of output per additional unit of water. The market supply schedule
would represent the water right holder's increasing opportunity cost of using
the water himself rather than renting it. The market equilibrium price, then,
would be greater than the current costs of conveyance. Those demanding the
supply would have an economic incentive to use water more efficiently. That
is, a rental market would increase the price of water to its marginal value
in production and would, thus, encourage more use of labor and capital (.i.e.,
water management) in combination with the water, thus reducing return flow
pollution.
Taxes and Subsidies
A market allocation of irrigation water would most likely not be suffi-
cient to correct for all return flow pollution. While a market could he
expected to significantly reduce the problem, water users would still have an
economic incentive to externalize all possible costs of production, including
the costs of controlling pollution. That is, by avoiding costs associated
with the use of water in production, water users can increase the difference
between their revenues and costs and, thus, increase profits.
In a market transaction, one party incurs costs in order to obtain bene-
fits, while the other party receives payments in exchange for goods or ser-
vices. The interdependence of the parties is illustrated by a closed feedback
loop, as shown in the lower portion of Figure 8. The purchaser of an agri-
cultural product is expected to pay the full cost of the item and, in turn,
he expects to get full and sole claim to its use.
Sometimes, however, payments for an item do not cover all of the costs.
While agricultural producers and consumers regulate each other through the
interaction of the supply and demand mechanisms of the market, farmers also
produce water pollution which affects the welfare of downstream water users.
Within the market structure there is no mechanism by which downstream water
users can close the pollution loop. Therefore, the farmer and the farm pro-
duct consumer reach an equilibrium position different from that which would
be optimal if all affected parties were included.
The function of government is to close the loop involving pollution. By
receiving complaints and transforming these inputs into regulatory interven-
tion (i.e., taxes, subsidies, laws, or regulations into the producers' opera-
tion), government closes the loop. The farmer is now forced to include the
interests of downstream water users as well as those of consumers of his
68
-------
Downstream Water
Users
Farm Product
Consumer
taxes/
subsidies
Farmer
Figure 8. Exchange, externalities and closing feedback loops,
produce In his decision-making process. Conceptually, taxes and subsidies
can be examined through the use of Figure 9- Hypothetical marginal cost
and demand (i.e., market benefit) curves for increasingly clean water are
shown in this figure. The optimal level of clean water is at QQ on the
horizontal axis. To the left of this amount, benefits would exceed costs
of additional clean water, while the converse is true for amounts greater
than Qo.
The polluter can be either forced or "bribed" to internalize his costs
of production. He can be forced through the use of a tax on untreated or
unacceptable return flow. As long as the tax exceeds the marginal cost of
clean water in Figure 9, It will be cheaper for the polluter to clean the
water rather than pay the tax. Therefore, the tax should exceed the margi-
nal cost up to QQ. On the other hand, a subsidy can be used to bribe the
polluter to clean the water.1 The amount of the bribe or subsidy would have
to exceed the marginal cost but not the marginal benefit of the clean water
up to Q .
LEGAL SOLUTIONS
The law, as a tool to guide or direct social activity relative to areas
of known or potential conflict, cannot operate in a vacuum. It must be both
considerate of and consistent with physical and socio-economic conditions and
serve as a facilitator to a desired end result and not reason for either
achieving the problem or the solution. Unfortunately, as discussed in a
previous section, the law often becomes a constraint as needs and conditions
change, requiring amendments, additions, or deletions to remove legal hind-
rances to the solution of water quality problems. For irrigation return flow
-------
Benefits
and Costs
($)
Marginal Cost
Marginal Benefits
Clean Water
Figure 9- Marginal benefits and costs of clean water.
quality control in the Yakima Valley of Washington, several potential legal
solutions exist which would facilitate improvement of the present situation.
One of the first legal causes described above was the failure to comply
with or enforce the beneficial use concept under which water is allocated and
the exercise of the right to use follows. Cases in Washington and other west-
ern states reflect the difficulty of enforcing this general concept. It is
suggested, therefore, that the DOE develop and adopt criteria for beneficial
use as an agency rule or regulation. These criteria for use will in effect
define the standards of water use efficiency in the conveyance and application
of water under the exercise of a water right relative to quantity of diver-
sions, use and quality of discharge. They will also provide the basis for
shifting the burden of proper use of the public resource upon the benefactor
(both purveyor and user) and in essence identify the duty for delivery, use
and removal of water.
A second legal solution is to merge the economic benefits from a more
liberal transfer policy into legal guidelines that still provide the protec-
tion from impairment to other water right holders. This would require, in
the case of federal reclamation project areas, the adoption of an incentive
mechanism to encourage water users to "market transfer" some of their water
through the district. For example, a lower or credit assessment system can be
worked out as a strategic Intervention for alleviating water quality problems.
70
-------
Some programs already exist which provide no- or low-cost funding for
improving the water delivery, application and removal subsystems. These state
programs, in conjunction with the federal SCS and ASCS programs, are generally
oriented toward quantity improvements. It is suggested that the water re-
sources revolving fund in Washington be amended to broaden its scope to:
a) provide funding to individuals; and b) for not only improvements as they
affect the quantity of water but also for improvements that enhance the
quality of return flows.
SOCIAL SOLUTIONS
It is important to remind ourselves at this point that "solutions" are
seen as potential responses emanating from the general causative factors
identified in Section 6. In this regard, solutions to problems of irrigation
quality control from the social standpoint evolve from the very social condi-
tions that allow such a state of affairs to exist. Therefore, possible solu-
tions that may contribute to changes in present social conditions, vis-a-vis
water quality, must have two points of attack: the individual and the organi-
zational setting related to irrigated agriculture.
The Individual
Among the potential solutions in this area, two are aimed at the existing
perceptions of the water users. A first approach would involve the establish-
ment of a comprehensive program that would demonstrate the significance of the
problem of irrigation return flow quality. In short, people must become aware
that a problem does exist. Steps are now being made through various mass
media, public meetings, projects, and so on to expose the population of the
Valley to the problem, but progress has been intermittent. In talking to
farmers in the Sulphur Creek area, which is the main point of a current
demonstration activity, there are still responses from violators indicating
that they had no problem, or reactions from a number of farmers to the extent
that they were only concerned with their own farms. In expressing concern
about the situation, it must be remembered that the agencies involved in this
awareness program must present the "true" situation and its consequences.
They must lay out the evidence', a solid basis of data and present to the pub-
lic a strong documented case with no exaggeration or, at the other end,
soothing underestimation.
In addition to making people aware of the problem, any program of poten-
tial solutions must also show how present irrigation practices contribute to
the problem. In order to do this, a common definition of intolerable degrad-
ation must be clearly established. A common definition means standards that
can be accepted by a consensus of the involved public, i.e., along technolo-
gical, legal and socio-economic conditions. The Sulphur Creek Project
should provide a good baseline for such a solution. At the same time, re-
search must continue on all types of irrigation in order to show the range
of practices leading to more efficient water use. For example, it has been
stated that there is a lack of research in furrow irrigation. This should be
rectified because even though the Valley is converting rapidly to sprinklers,
no one can say if pollution will stop with a significant number of people
71
-------
still remaining with furrow irrigation. There are people who will not adopt
sprinkler irrigation, so that alternative forms of furrow irrigation need to
be developed.
Regarding the interrelationship among the farmers in terms of water
quality management, proposed solutions aiming at making people aware of the
problem should also emphasize the regional aspect of such a problem. People
must realize the extent and complexity of the problem before they will even
start to be concerned about the "other" farmer. Finally, there should also
be a program that will promote greater farmer participation in district
matters. It is through such a participation that farmers can visualize and
comprehend the total situation, gain a more regional grasp of the problem,
and, thus, be able ultimately to develop an implementable comprehensive pro-
gram of solutions concerning problems of return flow.
In summary, solutions that emphasize the individual component of a pro-
gram around social conditions include:
a. development of a comprehensive regional program to demonstrate the
significance of the problem of irrigation return flow quality;
b. manifestation of how the present irrigation practices contribute to
the problem of irrigation return flow quality;
c. establishment of a common definition of intolerable degradation of
water quality, involving technical, legal and socio-economic criteria;
d. promotion of further research on all types of irrigation methods,
i.e., sprinkler, trickle, furrow, etc.; and
e. encouragement of more active participation by the farmers in irriga-
tion district matters.
The Organizational Setting
No matter how much emphasis one places on the individual farmer, if the
organizational component of the social system does not support such effort,
then the effectiveness of individual programs will diminish significantly.
A critical approach, then, is to establish also a regional authority in order
to coordinate all activities regarding irrigation. This authority can emerge
from the present institutional structure by combining existing organizational
entities involved with irrigation; or, create a new one in the Valley. In
either case, such an entity will serve as an information control and dissemi-
nation center, with powers for enforcing regulations and initiating activities.
At the same time, it would be a forum for anyone concerned about irrigation,
for obtaining appropriate answers or for elaborating the details of proposed
policies.
In addition to this overriding solution, a number of other approaches to
the problem focus on the organization-to-farmer linkages. In thfs regard, a
first solution is to make more people knowledgeable about the law. The infor-
mation control in the Valley is currently too narrowly based; more alternatives
72
-------
and options as well as points of view on the issue of irrigation return flow
quality control must be presented. A second solution with regard to linkages
is to create a viable program for disseminating information to the farmer.
There is a good start by the SCS, but more resources must be rallied for
expanding this informational and educational program. Of critical concern is
that not only should the information be made available to the farmer, but that
also the farmer should be able to transfer this knowledge to his own farm.
This follow-up program (and monitoring of effective adoption) is by nature
expensive; but consideration of alternatives and follow-up activities will
put this program into perspective and lead eventually to more successful
implementation efforts.
From the general literature, it is known that even though one presents
all the information about a program to an individual, it does not necessarily
follow that that individual will adopt the program. Enforcement of the law
and of regulations must be taken into consideration if the problem of irriga-
tion quality control is to be effectively solved. At present, there is debate
and confusion as to who has the proper authority to enforce management criter-
ia over irrigation water. This confusion must be cleared up and a clear-cut
authority structure must be established if implementable approaches are to be
pursued. The establishment of a coordinating and enforcement organization
must be established, accompanied by clearly defined and widely accepted
standards and means of implementation. A particular law that should be ob-
served is the 160-acre limitation. If enforced, ?t could eliminate many of
the problems associated with farmers trying to farm too much land. In short,
an enforcement structure must be created to help induce cooperation for the
various irrigation return flow quality control programs.
In summary, the solutions that emphasize the organizational component in
any approach concentrating on social conditions include:
a. the establishment of a regional authority over irrigation;
b. the need for more people to become knowledgeable about the law and
regulations regarding irrigation return flow quality;
c. the elaboration of a viable program for information dissemination
and uti1ization;
d. the promotion of a clear-cut authority structure enforcing laws and
regulations dealing with irrigation return flow quality; and
e. the enforcement of the 160-acre limit.
Finally, the previous brief discussion on social solutions to problems
of irrigation return flow quality points out that when all is said and done,
the heart of the matter is resistance by the public as a result of disagree-
ments as to the existence or extent of the problem and as to perceived advant-
ages 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.
73
-------
There are Innumerable possible combinations of solutions to the irriga-
tion return flow problem. Obviously, most adjustments suggested here could
not be implemented independently of other physical, economic, legal, or
social concerns. Packages, or combinations of solutions, however, are diffi-
cult to construct since they tend not to be generalizable, but situation-
specific. In this respect, one cannot provide a complete listing of such
combinations. Instead, some brief illustrations may show the types of mixes
which would be likely and the realistic adjustments that must be made if
implementation steps are to be followed.
Starting with the suggested physical on-farm improvements, it can be seen
that other measures would have to be incorporated in order to create a success-
ful program. Implementation of on-farm improvements would require an economic
scheme for cost-sharing such that the distribution of benefits and costs would
be equitable. Simultaneously, legal issues relating to water rights and pos-
sible changes in those rights must also be dealt with. Finally, perhaps the
most difficult problem involves the social acceptance of such a plan as a
result of persuasive factors for adopting changes and for establishing new
practices as part of a new social context.
The suggested water rental market solution is also not feasible by it-
self. It would also require a legal specification of water rights and per-
missible quantities of transferable water. Social acceptance, as always, is
a problem. Finally, physical facilities for accommodating transfers would be
required, and, therefore, technological measures must be incorporated in any
envisaged holistic approach.
There is no need to provide exhaustive lists of examples. The point
remains, the need for combined approaches or solutions. Given the thrust of
this research, the emphasis of further analysis rests on the assessment of
potential solutions through field testing in order to arrive at a consensus
of packages of appropriate solutions; evaluate acceptable approaches; and
finally, increase the credibility of building a process of implementation
through a combination of what is theoretically sound, realistically practic-
able and socio-economically attainable. It is this last quest (and final
section) that constitutes also the core argument of this research.
-------
SECTION 8
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Following the identification of potential solutions for return flow
quality problems in the Yakima Valley, the research team directed its efforts
to evaluation. It was understood that alternative solutions would be more or
less acceptable (and thus implementable) depending on their impacts on the
affected parties. Assessment procedures were devised to determine technical,
economic, political, and social acceptability of alternative 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 following discussion details the results of the assessment process.
The discussion is organized in the order that the assessment process took
place. In this sense, the exposition that follows begins with the evaluation
of potential solutions by the research team; field assessment ("testing") of
proposed solutions; and finally, an evaluation of the assessment process and
the final evolution of combination of solutions.
EVALUATION BY RESEARCH TEAM
Physical Evaluation
Water Delivery Subsystem—
System Rehabilitation—Annual irrigation water distribution, as shown In
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Project Histories, indicates that losses from
water diverted to USBR project areas in the Yakima Valley generally average
about 30 percent. In many cases, it is difficult to separate these losses
into operational spills and conveyance losses, although it would appear that
the latter would constitute about 80 percent of the loss, i.e., 20 to 25 per-
cent of the water diverted is lost to seepage.
Most of this seepage could be prevented by lining or piping canals and
laterals. Many of the districts have a continuing winter program of lining
those reaches showing the most significant evidence of seepage. As well as
saving water, the lining and piping reduces annual operating and maintenance
costs, and makes available land previously occupied by larger open canals and
service roads.
The majority of operational spills occur early and late in the season
when irrigation requirements are lower and high flows must be maintained in
the canals to provide sufficient head for gravity diversions. Additional check
75
-------
structures Would in many cases provide the required head without running
unnecessary water through the canals. Alternatively, the canal grades could
possibly be flattened during the rehabilitation program to raise the canal
above existing levels, with the decrease in capacity due to flattening more
than compensated by the increase due to the reduced friction of canal lining.
The long reaches of canal with adequate gravity diversion head would reduce
the need for check structures, while necessary check structures could be
automatically or remotely controlled to provide the desired head regardless
of flow.
A detailed investigation would be required to evaluate the costs of
rehabilitating the various irrigation systems and to determine the economic
benefits to the districts. The effect on water quality would be to leave
more water in the river, particularly in the reach below Sunnyside Dam, to
assimilate present waste loads and to provide a more viable aquatic environ-
ment.
Similarly, more water could be left in the river by pumping from a loca-
tion further downstream rather than by diverting from the upper reaches.
Those areas which are located across the river from the main body of the
irrigation area in the Sunnyside District, and which are served by inverted
siphons under the Yakima River, could be served by pumping stations located
at the siphons. In addition, hydraulic turbines could be replaced by conven-
tional pumping plants to eliminate the associated waste. CH2M/HI11 (1975)
has calculated costs for these alternatives at a number of locations.
An economic analysis would be required in order to evaluate which alter-
native is more feasible—lining (or piping) the main canals or constructing
pumping stations. Each alternative would accomplish roughly the same objec-
tive of alleviating seepage losses from the upper reaches of the main canals;
however, lining these upper reaches would still result in some seepage losses
(e.g., through cracks).
A separate analysis is required for the benefits that would result from
lining or piping the irrigation laterals which convey water from the canal
turnouts to the farm fields. The lining is, of course, highly beneficial in
reducing most of the seepage losses from a lateral. Equally as important,
however, is the role that rehabilitated laterals can play in providing the
necessary water control that allows higher farm irrigation application effi-
ciencies. The inclusion of flow measurement structures and water control
structures as part of lateral rehabilitation provides some of the tools re-
quired for "tuning up" present on-farm irrigation methods, as well as making
physical modifications to present irrigation methods more feasible. Thus, an
analysis of lateral rehabilitation should be undertaken hand-in-hand with the
analysis for improving on-farm irrigation methods and practices.
Reuse of Return Flows^—Much of the return flow within the Valley is
reused by districts diverting further downstream. However, if return flows
could be diverted for reuse before reaching the river, the waste load they
carry would be prevented from entering the river. The irrigation diversion
would also be reduced.
76
-------
According to CH2M/HH1 (1975), only the return flows of Sulphur Creek
drainage and Granger Drain warrant consideration for reuse. Apart from some
minor gravity diversions to the Sunnyside and Roza canal systems, approximate-
ly 4.1 nwsec (145 cfs) of Sulphur Creek drainage water could be reused for a
total capital cost of $1,800,000 ($160 per ha or $65 per acre) and an annual
operating and maintenance cost of $44,000 ($3.70 per ha or $1.50 per acre).
Approximately 0.10 mVsec (20 cfs) could be pumped from Granger Drain to
Granger Canal with a capital cost of $115,000 and an annual cost of $12,500.
This alternative would be of little direct economic advantage to the water
users. (In fact, water users currently being delivered water comprising some
return flows would rather do without such flows, to avoid contending with the
associated sediment loads). The effect of reusing return flows would be to
reduce wasteload flows by almost 50 percent on Sulphur Creek and approximately
70 percent on Granger Drain.
Conjunctive Use of Ground Water—Potential exists in many parts of the
Valley, particularly in the Wapato Project area, to irrigate with the good
quality ground water available at shallow depth. Although the ground water
salinity is 2-5 times greater than the average salinity of the Yakima River,
the water is suitable for irrigation. This water could be pumped directly
to the fields or into adjacent canals and laterals for distribution. The
former method is currently being used to some extent to eliminate the cost of
piping water to sprinkler systems. The major water quality benefit of the
river would be to reduce the quantity of diversion, using more saline ground
water return flows for irrigation, and providing the control (pump) for
achieving higher irrigation application efficiencies. Additional benefits
would accrue to the return flows if the water table were lowered sufficiently
to eradicate phreatophytes and hence prevent the concentrating effect caused
by their consumption of water. The loss of the wildlife habitat and aesthetic
value provided by the phreatophytes would have to be considered.
The primary value in using ground water for district operations (pumping
ground water Into canals) would be in allowing more water to remain in the
river. However, greater benefits can be achieved in using ground water as
irrigation supplies for pressurized systems, such as sprinkler and trickle
irrigation.
Additional Storage Capac? ty-Addi t ional storage capacity has been pro-
posed on the Yakima River and its tributaries to capture early season runoff
which at present cannot be fully regulated. Most of the investigative work
has been centered on enlarging Bumping Lake on Bumping River, a major tribu-
tary of the Naches River. The active storage capacity would be increased from
the present 41.6 X 10°m3 (33,700 acre-feet) to 565 X 106m3 (458,000 acre-feet).
The USBR has estimated that construction would cost $24,897,000, of which
$19,561,000 has been allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement 0965 cost
figures). Other possibilities considered for augmenting the supply of regu-
lated water include a 64.2 X 106m3 (52,000 acre-foot) reservoir on the
Teanaway River, a 358 X 10^m3 (290,000 acre-foot) reservoir on the Naches
River, construction of a lower outlet in existing Cle Elum Lake to utiHze
114 X 10^m3 (92,500 acre-feet) of water and subordination of the Wapato power
right on the Naches River to permit storage during periods of low runoff.
77
-------
All of the measures described above would permit a greater degree of
regulation, allowing more of the early season flows to be saved for later
in the season to maintain a viable aquatic environment. The quality of
return flows might be slightly adversely affected, as more water may be avail-
able for farm use in dry years than is currently available. This would
depend on the amount of the additional regulated flow which was devoted to
irrigation compared to fish and wildlife enhancement. If most of the water
was devoted to the latter, there would be little effect on return flows and
the ability of the river to assimilate waste loads carried by return flows
would be enhanced. Also, if additional storage regulation was undertaken in
conjunction with lateral rehabilitation and improved on-farm management prac-
tices, then the quality of irrigation return flows would be enhanced.
On-Farm Subsystem—
Contour Furrows—Water velocities within furrows (rills) in some fields
in the Yakima Valley have been observed to be sufficiently high to cause super-
critical flow conditions within the furrow. The high furrow velocities asso-
ciated with the irrigation of many of the fields causes large amounts of sed-
iment to be carried from the farms in tailwater runoff. These velocities
could be reduced by reducing the slope of the furrows, aligning them across
the slope rather than downslope. The furrows would need to be sufficiently
deep and the furrow stream sufficiently small to avoid overtopping. A wash-
out may otherwise occur, as one row overtops into another, successively
washing out furrows down the slope. The soil loss in this case could be
higher than under existing practices. In addition, rebuilding of the furrows
could cause severe damage to the existing crop. Notwithstanding, furrow
irrigation across the slope is used in many areas in the western United States
and does offer the potential of reducing erosion on farms in the Yakima Valley.
In some instances, the furrows would not necessarily need to follow the con-
tours of the land. By plowing at right angles to the existing (downslope)
direction, a rectangular plowing pattern could be maintained while having a
flatter furrow slope. In other instances, if the contour were not followed,
extensive landlevel1 ing would be required in the new direction of the furrows.
The cost of irrigating across the slope would depend largely on the topo-
graphy. If earth moving were necessary to allow straight furrows, costs
would be relatively high. Alternatively, if the furrows were to follow the
land contour, the cost of land preparation each season would be high. In
either case, more attention would be required during irrigation. In addition,
as the head ditch would be required to run downslope, additional check struc-
tures would be required or gated pipe would have to be used. With furrows
running across slope, the tailwater drains must of necessity run downslope.
To prevent erosion in these drains, additional improvements may be necessary.
The potential benefits to the farmer would be in saving of topsoi1 and a
reduction in fertilizer losses. Less water might be used for irrigation and
there would be some potential for increased crop production. Water quality
would benefit from the reduction in sediment; however, the additional revenue
to the farmer resulting from increased crop production and lower maintenance
costs may not offset his additional capital and/or labor costs.
-------
Tailwater Drain Improvements—Considerable erosion presently occurs in
many of the tailwater drains carrying excess irrigation water from the fields.
In some cases, collector pipes have been buried at the end of the fields to
prevent this erosion. Inlets collect water from several furrows and period-
ically drop it into the col lector pipe which safely carries the water to a
drain. Alternatively, the tailwater drain may be grassed for erosion protec-
tion. The grass cover reduces velocities, thereby preventing erosion and
allowing sediment to settle.
Costs for tailwater drain improvements have been estimated by CH2M/HI11
(1975) to be $75-$150 per ha ($30-$60 per acre) for collector pipes with
negligible annual costs, and about $7-50 per ha ($3 per acre) for grassed
tailwater drains with an annual cost of $2.50 or $5 per ha ($1 to $2 per
acre).
Although these improvements would benefit water quality to the extent of
reducing erosion in the tailwater drains, they would do little towards pre-
venting material eroded from the field itself from entering the drains unless
used in conjunction with contour furrowing, for example, or unless the sedi-
ment is collected. Sediment capture is discussed in the following section.
TaiIwater Ponds—The water requirements for crops in the Valley generally
range from about 50 to 65 percent of the water delivered to the farms as cal-
culated from the water distribution summaries of the USBR. The remainder is
lost to deep percolation and surface runoff, with a high proportion being the
latter in many areas. In many cases, this water could be collected in a
tailwater pond and pumped to the head of the field or to an adjacent field.
Some sediment would also be pumped to the head of the field, while the re-
mainder settling in the pond could be excavated and spread back on the land
during the nonirrigation season.
The cost of installing a tailwater pond and recirculation system would
depend on the field geometry and slope and whether the water was used on the
same or an adjacent field. CH2M/HH1 (1975) has estimated that for a 32 ha
(80 acre) farm operation with average slopes of 5 percent, the total capital
costs would be $620 per irrigated ha ($250 per acre). The annual cost of
power, sediment removal and operation and maintenance is estimated to be $30
per ha ($12 per acre). Although the cost could be considerably less on
flatter areas or where adjacent reuse is possible, the steeper lands are gen-
erally those most in need of remedial action. In addition, adjacent reuse is
not usually possible for these steeper lands.
If a tailwater pond is installed only for the purpose of sediment col-
lection, an outflow pipe is installed which allows the overflow to discharge
to a drain. In this case, the capital cost has been estimated at $50 per ha
($20 per acre), with an annual maintenance cost of $15 per ha ($6 per acre).
Data collected by CH2M/Hill (1975) indicates that 90 percent sediment removal
can be obtained with a detention time of less than two hours.
The construction of tailwater ponds would improve water quality by
removing sediment and absorbed phosphates. The irrigation districts would
benefit from the lower cost of removing sediment from the drains. The
79
-------
short-term benefit to the individual farm operator might be limited to the
recovery of some lost fertilizer. In the long term, the farmer would benefit
if the soil saved from running off were spread back on the field.
If the tailwater were recirculated, the river would benefit from the
reduced diversion requirement to the districts. However, in most districts
the farmer would not benefit as the amount of water delivered is in excess of
crop requirements. This water is delivered at a flat rate irrespective of the
amount used until the allocated quantity is reached. An exception would be
the Roza District which has a lower farm water allocation than the Valley
average. In this district, there may be some cases where it could be cheaper
to recirculate tailwater than to buy extra water. The Yakima-Tieton District
also has a low water allocation to the farm of 2,973 m3 (2.4 acre-feet) per
share, with farmers having 0.4 (one) or 0.6 (one and one-half) shares per ha
(acre). However, farmers in this district irrigate principally by sprinklers,
with a corresponding low sediment yield.
Therefore, although this method may be useful in reducing sediment in
return flows from farms, and is in fact being used in some parts of the Valley,
from the farmers' point of view it only allows existing production levels to
be maintained. For the capital outlay and annual costs, it allows no returns
greater than those currently being experienced, although it does offer the
potential for some savings in water charges, some recovery of lost fertilizer,
and the long-term benefit of retaining topsoil.
Sprinkler Irrigation—A conversion by many of the farmers from surface
methods to sprinkler irrigation systems could significantly reduce the waste-
loads currently carried to the Yakima River by return flows. In contrast to
many of the measures mentioned in the preceding sections, this conversion
would also offer the potential of increased financial returns to the indivi-
dual farm operator.
Sprinkler irrigation systems, properly designed, installed and operated,
have many advantages. They permit quite uniform applications of water, the
quantity of water applied can be effectively controlled, and the return flows
from irrigation are reduced. Of particular importance to the Yakima Valley
is their efficacy in erosion control when water is applied to land too steep
for other irrigation methods. The ability of sprinkler irrigation systems to
apply water uniformly to all soils allows surface runoff to be eliminated and
deep percolation to be greatly reduced. Soil and nutrients are saved, so
that costs of production of crops are significantly reduced. Benefits accrue
both to farmers and to the region in general. At present, many thousands of
dollars are spent annually by the irrigation districts to clean sediment from
the drains, with additional funds spent to clean out plant growth which has
been stimulated by nutrients in drainage water. These costs are paid by irri-
gation district members in the charges for their irrigation water. They
could be greatly reduced by more efficient means of irrigation.
At present, over 100,000 acres of irrigated cropland in the Valley, or
20 percent, are irrigated by sprinklers, with the remainder irrigated by sur-
face methods. The number of farmers who are investing in sprinkler systems is
increasing, due to the economic advantages of these systems. Some are
80
-------
utilizing sprinklers for frost control. This use has increased as the cost
of fuel for radiant heaters has risen. Farmers in the Yakima Valley cite
reduced water use, lower labor requirements and increased crop yields as
reasons for converting to sprinkler systems.
The lower labor requirements associated with sprinkler systems are partic-
ularly noticeable on the high intake soils and on steep or rolling lands where
close water management is necessary with surface methods. Unfortunately, such
management is not always found on farms with these soil characteristics. The
pressure of other farm operations requires that irrigation be fitted in as
incidental work that is carried out once or twice a day. When irrigation is
via surface methods, a waste of water and in most cases topsoi1 is the conse-
quence. Portable solid-set or permanent set systems are suited to such
irrigation practices—labor requirements are very low and the systems lend
themselves to automation for all water application purposes.
In areas with limited water supplies, such as the Roza District, the
waste of water with surface irrigation methods is serious. Sprinkler systems
are recommended because they allow small streams of water to be distributed
over a larger area. Irrigation can be accomplished with other methods.
Charges for "excess" water can be reduced and less water needs to be diverted
from the river.
Nutrient losses by deep percolation are costly. They can be reduced by
application of fertilizers at the time required by the plant, utilizing the
sprinkler system. Water soluble fertilizers can be applied through the
sprinklers with the timing and amount controlled to meet the needs of the
plant. The ability to schedule fertilizer applications to plant needs
rather than to cultural operations, as with surface irrigation methods,
reduces the opportunity for leaching nutrients beyond the root zone. The
amount of water applied can also be controlled to meet the needs of the crop,
with light applications for seedlings and young plants. Traditionally, sur-
face irrigation methods result in too much water being applied during seed-
ling and plant emergence growth stages. This is the combined result of early
season irrigation practices being similar to later irrigations when larger
water applications are necessary, as well as inherent physical limitations in
surface irrigation methods. However, much could be done to "tune up" such
irrigation systems to allow higher early season irrigation application effi-
ciencies. Water soluble herbicides and insecticides can also be applied
through the sprinklers.
Land levelling is common in some parts of the Valley in association with
relocation of sediment back to the head of the fields. This cost can be elim-
inated with sprinklers. Soils too shallow to be levelled properly for other
methods can be irrigated safely with sprinklers. The land taken up by head-
ditches, borders and tailwater drains can be brought back into production.
The weed harbors in channels and drains can be eliminated. Wear on farm
machinery due to crossing furrows is reduced and tillage is simplified.
Generally, one of the major obstacles to adoption of sprinkler irriga-
tion is the high capital cost involved. The cost of converting the surface
Irrigation methods to sprinklers will vary markedly depending on the
81
-------
particular system adopted and the acreage irrigated. The following table
gives typical capital and annual costs for different systems, based on instal-
lations in the Valley (Table 8).
The equipment cost is the original investment, amortized over the
expected life of each system, at an interest rate of 4 percent. Labor and
maintenance costs have been extracted from the CH2M/HI11 (1975) report "Agri-
cultural Return Flow Management in the State of Washington." Power costs are
based on the pressure requirements of each system and the peak flow rates
required to satisfy the demands of the crops to which each system is best
adapted. Those power costs have been calculated from the rates supplied by
Pacific Power and Light Company of Yakima. Each system generally operates
within a limited pressure range at the sprinkler nozzle, and as most would
be fed from the existing gravity water supply, the total pressure require-
ment may be reasonably estimated.
The investment requirements and annual costs of each system should be
taken as indicative only. As each installation will vary according to size,
crops grown, topography, and distance from source of water and power supply,
costs may vary markedly and hence no attempt has been made at great refinement.
Rather, the costs given would more likely represent a valley-wide average at
today's prTces. The difference in total annual costs between one system and
another should not be taken as a comparison of the two systems under the same
conditions. Rather, the total annual costs indicate the costs for a given
TABLE 9- COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
System
Handmove
Sideroll
Center-pivot
Portable Solid-set
(non-automated)
Portable Solid-set
(automated)
Permanent set
(non-automated)
Permanent set
(automated)
Investment
Required
($/acre)
250
250
400
800
1,300
1,000
1,500
Equipment
20
22
36
59
96
64
96
Annual Cost
($/acre)
Labor & Power
Maintenance
35
27
20
15
12
10
8
10
8
11
15
15
18
18
Total
65
57
67
89
123
92
122
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares.
82
-------
system for the type of crops for which it would most likely be adopted. Hand-
move systems have been based upon their use for pasture; sideroll and center
pivot sprinkler irrigation systems would be used for grain crops; and solid
set and permanent sprinkler systems would be used on orchards.
Although power costs are only between 12 and 20 percent of the total
annual costs of the various sprinkler systems, this cost and the likelihood
of its increase are frequently quoted as reasons for a limitation on the
future development of sprinkler irrigation in the Valley. If power costs do
increase to the point of becoming a highly significant factor, consideration
may have to be given to a system with many of the advantages of sprinkler
irrigation, but with a lower power requirement—trickle irrigation.
Trickle Irrigation—Trickle or drip irrigation is a recently developed
irrigation method and would appear to be particularly well adapted to the
Yakima Valley. This method of irrigation has gained attention during recent
years because of the potential for increasing yields, while decreasing water
requirements and labor input. The concept behind trickle irrigation is to
provide the plant with the optimal soil moisture environment continuously.
This is accomplished by conducting water directly to individual plants,
through laterals running along each row, instead of providing water to the
entire field as with flood or sprinkler irrigation. The multitude of lateral
lines are supplied by manifold lines which connect to the main line, which,
in turn, connects to the water source. A control head is provided, generally
at the water source, to regulate pressure and flow and to filter suspended
solids from the water. A fertilizer injection system is often incorporated
into the control head.
A wetted profile, the shape of which is largely dependent on soil charac-
teristics, develops in the plant's root zone beneath the "trickier11 or
"emitter." Ideally, the area between trees and between tree rows is dry and
receives moisture only from incidental rainfall. Trickle irrigation saves
water because only the plant's root zone is supplied with water and little
water should be lost to deep percolation or evaporation under proper manage-
ment. The only irrigation return flow is that due to a leaching fraction
which may be necessary to prevent excessive salt buildup in the root zone.
There is no surface runoff and very little nonbeneficial consumptive use of
water by weeds. Water savings are effected through the ease with whtch the
correct amount of water is accurately applied.
The Washington State University Experiment Farm at Prosser is success-
fully growing orchard crops with trickle irrigation using only a fraction of
the water being used for sprinkler irrigation. This low water requirement
reduces pipe size and the use of power. In some other installations in the
Yakima Valley, the pressure requirement is being provided totally fay gravity.
Crop response to trickle irrigation in the Valley appears to he somewhat
superior than to other systems of irrigation, particularly with new plantings.
Fruit growers have been pleased with the earlier maturity of trees. This is
probably a result of the absence of moisture stress, which occurs with other
irrigation methods in the water-short districts. A well-managed trickle sys-
tem will result in effective soil aeration, provision of sufficient available
83
-------
nutrients by fertilizer injected into the water and a nearly constant, low
tension soil moisture condition. By minimizing the wetting of the soil sur-
face and plant foliage, trickle irrigation reduces the development of many
insect, disease and fungus problems. In addition, the efficiency of pesticide
sprays is increased.
Yakima Valley farmers first began using trickle Irrigation during the
early years of large-scale commercial development. The earliest systems in
the Valley were installed during 1971. Some of the innovative farmers jumped
at the chance to try what seemed to be a low-labor, low-cost irrigation system.
Many unproven emitters were available, with microtubes most frequently used.
Farmer-installed systems were sold for as little as $620 per ha ($150 per
acre). Sand filters were often underdesigned and therefore required frequent
backf1ushing. Water quality factors other than suspended solids were not
adequately examined. Farmers expected cheap, yet effective, miracles. These
factors resulted in many abandoned systems and negative feelings about trickle
i rrigatlon.
Where trickle irrigation systems have been abandoned, the chief reason
cited is the constant blocking of emitters. The most common cause of clog-
ging has been particles of sand and silt, organic growth and chemical precipi-
tation in the microtube emitters. Filtration of the irrigation water is the
best defense against these occurrences, together with chemical additives
where necessary.
At the Washington State University Experiment Farm at Prosser, screens,
Laval separators and graduated sand filters are used to filter the irrigation
water which contains large amounts of suspended solids. Prosser is located
at the southern end of the Yakima Valley where the quality of irrigation water
supplies is poorest. The Laval separators are backflushed continuously by a
small flow and the sand filters are automatically backflushed every half hour
during system operation. This is accomplished by a clock which starts an
electric motor to which cam-operated valves are linked. No major problems
with filtration or emitter performance have been encountered.
Other operators have also overcome the problem of emitter blockage by
ensuring adequate filtering, as well as replacing microtube emitters by more
reliable types. At least one grower is enjoying success with mist emitters
or "foggers." These comparatively inexpensive emitters spray water vertic-
ally upward and water reaches the ground as a mist covering an area a couple
of meters across. If plugging should occur, the emitters can readily be
cleaned by unscrewing the cap containing the orifice and allowing a large
quantity of water to flow.
Systems which are operating properly (or at least adequately) do not
insure proper application of water, however. There are instances where
orchards are irrigated continuously for several weeks instead of being irri-
gated for several hours every day of the season. This negates many of the
advantages associated with trickle irrigation.
In order to overcome the negativism associated with trickle irrigation,
future systems must be well designed, relatively maintenance free and
8k
-------
properly managed. This requires the service of competent engineers, with a
knowledge of the various trickle emitters and filtration systems presently
available, and with the ability to provide a follow-up management service.
In fact, some demonstration on farmers' fields will be initially required
(which incorporate the principles stated above) in order to gain farmer
acceptance of trickle irrigation. Farmers who desire a system with little
labor input should consider automatic backflushing filters, fertilizer injec-
tion and soil moisture detecting controllers. Some emitter plugging due to
human or water quality factors should be anticipated, and a systematic
approach used to correct these problems as they develop.
For irrigation of widely spaced crops (e.g., fruit trees), the cost of a
correctly designed trickle irrigation system is relatively low in comparison
to that for other solid set of permanent irrigation systems. In orchards, the
cost of a trickle irrigation system may be lower than that for a solid set or
permanent sprinkler system having the same level of automation. In addition,
where clogging is not a problem and emitter line maintenance is minimal, oper-
ation and maintenance costs of the trickle irrigation system are usually quite
low. However, in plantings of row crops or vines, where the average distance
between emitter lines must be less than 10 feet, the cost of trickle irriga-
tion is relatively high (Keller and Karmeli, 1975),
For the purpose of a cost analysis for typical trickle irrigation instal-
lations in the Yakima Valley, preliminary designs were prepared for square
fields of 6, 12 and 2k hectares (15, 30 and 60 acres) for both manual and
automated systems. The costs associated with these designs are much higher
than previously experienced in the Valley as the systems have been designed
to provide a high degree of reliability and to correctly supply crop water
needs. The water supply has been assumed to be located at the top of the
field, with a field slope of 5 percent. The commonly accepted apple tree
spacing of 3-7 by 5-5 m (12 by 18 feet) was used, resulting in 500 trees per
hectare (200 per acre).
Screen filters were utilized for both the manual and automated systems.
A pressure differential across the screen causes the filter for the automated
system to backflush as necessary. The value used for total suspended solids
was 400 mg/1 maximum.
The transpiration peak for mature apple trees was considered to be 6.k
mm/day (0.25 inches/day) under trickle irrigation. After considering such
factors as emission uniformity and the ratio of transpiration to application,
this means that each mature tree must be supplied with approximately 150
liters (40 gallons) of water per day during the period of peak transpiration.
t
The systems were designed to operate for 15 hours per day (3 irrigation
sets) and 20 hours per day (k irrigation sets) for the manual and automated
designs, respectively. Figure 10 shows the layout of the 6 hectare manual
system. Layout of the 6 hectare automated system is identical except it has
k irrigation sets. Layout of the 12-24 hectare sets differ only in dimen-
sions except for additional lateral manifolds on the 2k hectare systems.
85
-------
SET 1
SET 2
SET 3
r
tj
0
r
LjSystem head
— teral
i
-< — Main
^ Submain
-, M-,n I fnlrl
CL
o
** .
if\ '
— < 2k5 m *>.
j
£
Ul
^
c
1
rv
r
si
[
Figure 10. Layout of the 6 hectare trickle irrigation system showing
various components of the distribution network.
An initial investment cost analysis for each system as described is
presented in Table 10. Note that the per hectare cost varies from a low of
$2,8H for a 2k hectare manual system to a high of $3,260 for a 12 hectare
automated system. The per hectare cost of the 12 hectare automated system Is
higher than the unit cost of a 6 hectare automated system because of the nec-
essity of more PVC piping. PVC is substantially more expensive than poly-
ethylene pipe, but is necessary for large pipe diameter requirements.
Irrigation Scheduling— Irrigation scheduling programs have been devel-
oped for many areas, Including southern and eastern Washington. The USBJR
has developed irrigation scheduling services for some of its projects, devel-
oped with a fivefold objective to:
1. Increase crop yields and quality.
2. Reduce fertilizer losses.
3. Reduce the amount of unnecessary water and labor inputs to farming.
86
-------
TABLE 10. INITIAL INVESTMENT COST ANALYSIS FOR TRICKLE IRRIGATION ON AN ORCHARD CROP ON A 3.7 BY 5.5 METER SPACING
00
DESCRIPTION
MATERIALS
System head
Pump
Screen filter
Flow meter
Pressure gauges
Fertilizer injector
Control ler
Miscellaneous (5% of above)
Subtotal
Distribution system
PVC pipe
Polyethylene pipe
Pipe fittings
Emitters
Tensiometers
Pressure regulators
Manual valves
Solenoid valves
Electrical wi re
Miscellaneous (5% of above)
Subtotal
LABOR
Head installation1
Main and submain installation (buried)
Emitter lateral installation (on surface)^
TOTAL COST
PER HECTARE COST
6 Hectare System
Automated I Manual
769 871
1,689 1,18*1
265 265
23 23
187 18?
600
T7& 127
$ 3,700 $ 2,657
1,523 3,288
2,02't 1,826
54a 5^0
6,900 6,900
59 59
520 390
20 40
100
227
596 652
$12,509 $13,695
1,275 850
600 540
1)00 'tOO
$18,W) $18.11)2
$ 3,080 $ 3,021)
12 Hectare
Automated
990
2,598
1)28
23
187
600
2
-------
k. Reduce drainage problems.
5. Improve the quality of return flows.
All of these objectives are relevant to the Yakima Valley. From the
individual farm operator's point of view, the objectives may be summarized
as: applying the optimum amounts of water at the optimum time intervals to
obtain the maximum economic returns.
Long before the advent of digital computers, climatological monitors or
instantaneous communication systems, successful irrigation farmers were sched-
uling irrigations based on, for example, the appearance of the crop or the
feel of the soil. However, the fallibility of experience and judgment has
been demonstrated throughout the world as overapplication of water has led
to yield reductions due to fertilizer leaching, poor soil aeration and plant
diseases. In addition, such inefficient irrigation practices have caused
regional water quality problems, mosquito nuisances, public health problems,
and local property damage due to waterlogging of soils and seepage of water
into basements of homes and businesses.
The relative ease with which irrigation can be programmed for digital
computers has allowed irrigation scheduling services to be provided to a
large number of irrigators by a single facility. Modern districtwide irri-
gation scheduling programs consist of six primary steps (Figure 11)
(Skogerboe, Walker, Taylor, and Bennett, 197*0-
First, an inventory of the soil and crop characteristics for each field
is made to gain an understanding of the essential requirements for efficient
irrigation. A calculation of the water needs of the growing crops is then
made, specifically at what rates are the crops and soil surfaces utilizing
water from the soil moisture reservoir. Such estimates are generally based
on well tested empirical techniques, rather than actual measurements, because
of convenience and the established reliability of the computational proce-
dures. The next aspect of irrigation scheduling is to determine the avail-
ability of moisture in the root zone for meeting crop needs between irriga-
tions. This step is accomplished by initially sampling the soil profile to
measure the available soil moisture storage and then periodically sampling
to reassess the available moisture and update the consumptive use estimates.
Upon determining the amount of soil moisture available, the interval between
irrigations is projected. In addition, by knowing the soil and irrigation
system characteristics, the amount of water to be applied (as well as the
means to accomplish the suggested application) can be determined. Finally,
the results of the previous steps must be delivered to the irrigator in order
to implement the suggestions. Also, proper implementation is highly depend-
ent upon flow measurements being available to the farmer so that he knows
"what he is managing." This program is subsequently repeated throughout an
irrigation season.
This service offers the potential to improve water quantity and quality
in the Yakima River while at the same time enhancing returns to the farmer,
The cost varies according to the extent of service offered, but is usually in
the range of $2.70 to $12.50 per ha ($1-50 to $5.00 per acre). Of course,
-------
Inventory Soil and Crop
Characteristics for Each Field
Compute Expected Values of
Evapotranspiration During
Next Seven Days
Measure Soil Moisture
Ava?labi1i ty
Determine Date of
Next Irrigation
Determine How Much Water to be
Applied and the Means to Accomplish
the Specified Application
Communicate Scheduling Suggestions
to Individual Irrlgators
Is This The
Final Irrigation?
Irrigator Communicates
Date and Amount of
His Last Irrigation to
Scheduling Service
Figure 11. Irrigation scheduling components,
89
-------
many individual irrigators could schedule Irrigation applications more pre-
cisely at virtually no cost if the required knowledge were made available to
them and provided they had sufficient time during their busy schedule to make
the necessary measurements. The success of commercial irrigation scheduling
companies has been largely based on their ability to provide a service to the
fa rmers.
As a measure of improving the quality of irrigation return flows, irriga-
tion scheduling can only be of benefit if either, or both, the surface (tail-
water runoff) or subsurface (deep percolation) return flows are reduced.
There is little documented proof, to date, that commercial irrigation sched-
uling services are reducing irrigation return flows. There is no doubt that
this can be accomplished; however, irrigation scheduling must result in modi-
fied Irrigation practices In order to reduce return flows. Modifying irriga-
tion practices is the most important aspect of "tuning up" the irrigation
system, which is the subject of the following section.
Improving Existing Irrigation Methods—Much can be accomplished by
analyzing existing irrigation methods and practices in Yakima Valley. The
primary difficulty is the availability of technically qualified personnel and
funding for making the necessary measurement on a sufficient number of farm
fields so that proper advice can be given to farmers regarding modifications
to existing Irrigation practices that would result in water quality benefits,
as well as increased crop production.
Field measurements are needed on farm fields in order to establish the
quantity, quality and timing of farm irrigation deliveries, the flow charac-
teristics of the irrigation method being employed, consumptive use by crops,
tailwater runoff, leaching requirement, and the quantity and quality of deep
percolation losses. For each field that such data are collected, recommend-
ations can be made regarding modified irrigation practices that would more
beneficially utilize water supplies and fertilizers. Also, this field data
will show constraints being faced by the irrigator in achieving higher irri-
gation application efficiencies. Then, recommendations can be made regarding
a variety of physical improvements which could be made to eliminate some or
all of these constraints. These recommended physical improvements can consist
of simple modifications to the existing irrigation method (e.g., concrete
head ditch, employment of different sizes of siphon tubes, flow measurement
structure(s), gated pipe, automated concrete head ditches, etc.); conversion
to new irrigation methods (e.g., converting from furrow irrigation to sprink-
ler irrigation or trickle irrigation); or could involve physical improvements
In the water delivery subsystem, in particular, the lateral(s) (e.g., lining
the lateral, placing the Irrigation water supply in a pipeline, constructing
flow measurement structures, improved water control structures, etc.). Also,
the employment of irrigation scheduling In conjunction with any of these
Improvements would be highly beneficial.
Modification of Fertilizer Practices—As discussed in preceding sections,
two of the most serious contaminants of the Yakima River are phosphorus and
nitrogen, of which agriculture contributes 15 percent of the load of the
former and 66 percent of the latter. Nitrate levels in the river near Benton
City have increased sixfold in the period 1953 to 197^ (0.2 to 1.2 mg/l)
90
-------
(CH2M/HI11, 1975 ). This corresponds to the Increasing use of fertilizer in
recent years. The effects of fertilizer residuals on water quality have been
discussed in a previous section. The effects of overferti1ization on farm
economy and the benefits of a reduction in fertilizer use have been described
aptly by CH2M/HI11 (1975) as follows:
Increased use of fertilizers in recent years has led to significant
increases in crop productivity. However, plant nutrients, either
native or added by commercial fertilizers, are of no value to the
crops if they are washed or leached from the soil; they can then
cause serious water quality problems
Fertilizer application theoretically can be added to the soil to
meet the exact requirements of the individual crops. If fertilizer
application could be accomplished more efficiently, reduction in
applied amounts could probably be realized. Among evaluations
that can be made is the practical use of soil analyses to deter-
mine the native nutrient constituents so that only the necessary
fertilizer is applied. This can lead to more efficient use of
various fertilizer types.
In addition, improved placement of fertilizers should be evalu-
ated. This can often be effected through mechanical means or
certain water application methods. Only one example of this
concept is using a type of drip or trickle irrigation developed
in Israel. Using this method, precise amounts of nutrients are
applied directly to the root zone of the crop.
An improved or more efficient application of fertilizers must
be evaluated in conjunction with improved or more efficient
methods of water application and soil management. When this
is done, significant reductions in the amount of salts reach-
ing the water bodies can be realized.
To optimize the benefits to farm operators and minimize the
effect of fertilizers on water quality, three considerations
are important:
1. The timing of fertilizers reaching the plant roots should
be such that optimum levels of production can be obtained;
2. The correct amount of fertilizers must be available to ob-
tain best production (overapplicat ions, as well as under-
applications, can affect crop production); and
3. Overapplicat ion of either fertilizers or water can cause
leaching of fertilizers below the root zone, where it will
enter the ground water or streams by subsurface flows.
Modification of fertilizer practices can be accomplished more frequent-
ly in conjunction with improved on-farm water management practices. In fact,
incorporating soils analyses for fertilizer recommendations into an irrigation
scheduling service would be highly beneficial to the farmer. Thus, "tuning
up" the on-farm irrigation practices, along with irrigation scheduling, would
91
-------
directly result In better utilization of fertilizer and consequent reductions
in the fertilizer residuals which eventually return to the Yakima River. The
combination of "tuning up" on-farm irrigation practices, modified fertilizer
practices and irrigation scheduling would yield significant benefits to the
farmer in increased crop production as well as improved quality of irrigation
return flows.
Treatment—
Grassed Return Flow Ditches—Grassed return flow ditches have been pro-
posed to improve water quality by reducing erosion and permitting nutrient
uptake by aquatic plants. A comparison of CH2M/HH1 (1975) of data from two
sampling stations indicated that the station with a grassed ditch above it had
a proportionately lower suspended sediment yield than at the other location.
To reduce erosion in the drains would require that the grade be flattened
and drop structures provided. A larger cross-sectional area of flow would
therefore be required, making this method applicable only to the shallow
drains. The capital cost has been estimated by CH2M/Hill (1975) as $5,000
per kilometer ($8,000 per mile). To this must be added the annual cost of
maintenance, any necessary reseeding and desilting of the drains. A more
feasible approach might be to maintain higher velocities, not high enough
to cause drain erosion, but sufficiently high to retain the sediment in sus-
pension, allowing it to be carried to a treatment pond. From this central-
ized location, sediment could be removed more economically than from many
kilometers of drain.
Treatment Ponds—Ponding of drain flows might be considered for some of
the larger drains in the Valley having high sediment and/or nutrient levels,
such as South Drain, Sulphur Creek, Granger Drain, and Spring Creek. Treat-
ment ponds could remove sediment, nitrates and phosphates. According to
CH2M/H?11 (1975), the removal of sediment will require only about two hours
detention time for 90 percent removal, whereas 90 percent removal of nitrates
and phosphates may require 15 days or longer. Nitrates and phosphates can be
removed effectively through the growth of algal organisms but the organisms
must be harvested for the process to be effective. Because of the difficulty
and expense of building treatment ponds in other drains, CH2M/HI11 (1975) con-
siders that the only area where this method might be feasible would be on
Sulphur Creek. Here, natural ponds already exist and land costs would be
fairly low. The total capital cost has been estimated to be $240,000 and
annual operation and maintenance costs $75,000. The expected benefit is
that suspended solids in this drain would be 90 percent removed, total phos-
phate would be 60 percent removed and total nitrogen would be 40 percent
removed.
Advanced Treatment Systems—Advanced treatment systems could only be con-
sidered for the flows of Sulphur Creek because of physical and financial
limitations. Processes relevant to irrigation return flow quality include
the addition of coagulants for sediment removal, algal stripping and/bacter-
ial denitrification for nitrogen removal. For the flows and constituents
recorded in Sulphur Creek, CH2M/HI11 (1975) gives the following tabulation
of expected costs for various removal procedures.
92
-------
Removal Capital Annual
Process Efficiency Cost. $ Cost, $
Chemical Coagulation 33% sediment 10,200,000 1,742,000
Algal Stripping 90% nitrate 3,600,000 30,000
Bacterial Denitrification 90? nitrate 1,300,000 75,000
The costs of these alternatives would make advanced treatment difficult to
justify in comparison to other alternatives.
It is obvious from the above that quite a variety of technical alterna-
tives become feasible through an assessment of potential solutions. Equally
important, however, is the team's legal and socio-economic evaluation of
proposed solutions.
Economic Evaluation
Water Rental Market--
The work of Pfeiffer and Whittlesey (1975) at Washington State University
is useful in determining the potential effect of a water rental market on the
water quality in the Yakima River. A linear program which modeled farmer re-
sponses to alternative policies was linked with a hydrologic and water quality
model of the Yakima River. The research shows the effect of different pricing
and regulatory policies on the quality of water in the Yakima River. Although
the establishment of a water rental market was not one of the policies consid-
ered, the information generated in this research can be applied to an analysis
of such a market. Table 11 displays the relevant data.
As indicated earlier, sediment is considered the major water pollution
problem in the area. Because of hydrologic complexities, it was very difficult
to model actual levels of sedimentation in the Yakima River. Therefore, meas-
ures of sediment loss per irrigated acre were used as indicators of levels of
sedimentation in the Yakima River.
In order to determine the effect of market establishment on sedimentation
in the Yakima River, supply and demand curves for water under the current sys-
tem must first be derived. The demand curve, D|_ in Figure 12, is derived by
plotting the response of water right holders to alternative water tax levels
as developed by Pfeiffer and Whittlesey. At low tax levels, the irrigators
demand more water than they do as tax levels increase. Plotting the quantity
demanded at each price yields a demand curve for water. The demand curve
measures the marginal value product of water to irrigators of the current
453,000 acres (183,329 ha). It indicates the decreasing value of the product
produced by each additional unit of water.
The supply curve, S|_, reflects the fact that water is supplied at the
average conveyance cost of $5.00 per acre-foot ($4.05 per cubic meter), up to
the total available annual water supply of 2,393,000 acre-feet (2,953 million
cubic meters). Note that water right holders are currently using the entire
flow of thefully appropriated river.
Also shown in Figure 12 are three potential market demand curves under
differing assumptions of irrigable acreage (hectares) held by non-right
93
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF DIFFERENT WATER PRICES
Water Appl ied
(1,000 ac.-ft.)
Water Appl ied
(ac.-ft. /acre)
Acres Irrigated
(1 ,000 acres)
Market Price — Water
Present Cost
(Conveyance)
$5.00
2,393
5.28
453
Sediment Loss
(T/acre) 1.74
Total Sediment
Loss (1,000 T)
Per Acre Net
Crop Income (R)
Net
($1
Crop Income
,000)
788
236
106,908
$10.00
2,393
4.77
502
1.31
658
216
108,432
$15,00
2,393
4.53
528
1.00
528
228
120,384
$20.00 $25.
2,393 2,
4.44 4.
00 $30.00
393 2,393
10 4.07
539 584 588
0.91 o.
35 0.32
490 204 188
263 303 291
141,757 176,952 170,817
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters. 1 ton = 907.185 kilograms.
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares.
SOURCE: Derived from Pfeiffer and Whittlesey, page 37.
-------
30 -
25 -
20 -
M-
(0
0)
u
TO -
D, (453,000) DM (503,000) DM (588,060) DM (653,000)
acres acres acres acres
1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400
Quantity of Water (1,000 a.f.)
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
SOURCE: Pfeiffer and Whittlesey.
1 acre = O.bQkJ hectares,
Figure 12. Legal allocation of water.
-------
holders. D^ (523,000) reflects the demand of water right holders and non-
right holders, assuming 70,000 additional irrigable acres. DM (653,000)
assumes 200,000 (80,940) additional acres (hectares), and DM (588,000)
assumes a median estimate of 135,000 (54,634.5),additional irrigable acres
(hectares). The current allocation system responds, however, only to the
demand of the water right holders with 453,000 (183,329.1 hectares) acres.
Assume that a rental market for water is introduced into the area, so
that non-right holders could rent water from current water right holders for
irrigation of additional acreage. Assume further that rental is restricted
to transfers within the agricultural sector. Each unit of water held by
current water right holders could be used to yield a return in agricultural
production or could be rented. The opportunity to receive rent for each unit
of water is the foundation of the upward sloping supply curve in Figure f-3/
Its exact location is determined by calculating how much water will be placed
on the market by water right holders at each price. This amount would be the
same as the amount by which they would reduce their diversions if water was
taxed at dollar amounts, corresponding to each price, and so it can be de-
rived from Pfeiffer and Whittlesey's data. These points, indicated by X's,
are plotted as the supply curve for rental water. A plotting of the quantity
of water demanded by non-right holders at each price yields a demand curve for
two of the estimates of additional irrigable land. In order to avoid over-
statement, the remaining analysis will use the lowest estimate of 70,000
(28,329) additional irrigable acres (hectares) in determination of the effect
of establishing a water rental market on water quality.
The important information to be gained by reference to the supply and
demand curves is the equilibrium price of water that would result if a water
rental market was created in the Yakima Valley. As can be seen from
Figure 13, the equilibrium price is about $14.00 per acre-foot ($11.34 per
thousand m3). At this price, approximately 320,000 acre-feet (395xl06 cubic
meters) of water would be rented from water right holders.
Figure 14 shows an individual water right holder's supply and demand for
water. The individual response to the creation of a water rental market can
be seen from this figure. At present, the irrigator is paying approximately
$5-00 per acre-foot ($4.05 per thousand m3) for irrigation water and is
allocated an average of 5.28 acre-feet per acre, as reflected in the legal
supply curve, SL- His initial demand curve, d|_, reflects the marginal value
product of water in agricultural production. Creation of the opportunity to
rent water causes his demand curve, dR, to become horizontal at the $14.00
($11.34 per thousand m3) rental price. He will reduce the water application
on his land to 4.575 acre-feet (5,646 cubic meters) per acre and rent the
remaining 0.705 acre feet per acre (2,150 cubic meters per hectare) to non-
right holders.
The situation of the non-right holder is illustrated in Figure 15. His
demand is assumed to be identical to farmers who currently are water right
holders. Those who begin irrigation operations may face initial fixed costs
which cause the marginal value produce of water to be somewhat lower than
that of current users. After the initial period, however, these will be
treated as sunk costs and not included in the demand function. At present,
96
-------
30 -
S 0*53,000)
acres)
D (70,000)
acres
D (139,000)
acres
100 200 300 *»00 500 600 700 800 900 1 ,000
Quantity of Water (1,000 a.f.)
1 acre-foot = 1,23^ cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.^0^7 hectares.
Figure 13- Water rental market.
-------
OO
'i.OO k.2$ k.50 k. 70 5.00 5-25
Quantity of Water (a.f./acre)
1 acre-foot = 1,23^ cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.40^7 hectares,
Figure !*». Supply and demand for water right holders.
-------
20 -
15 -
20 -
15 -
0)
O
~ 10 -
a.
5 -
4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5-25
Quantity of Water (a.f./acre)
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares,
Figure 15. Supply and demand for right and nonright holders.
-------
the non-right holder has no supply of water, so his supply curve, S|_, follows
the Y-axis. Creation of a water rental market generates a supply curve, hor-
izontal at the $14.00 ($11.34 per thousand m3) rental price. At that price,
each non-right holder will rent 4.575 acre-feet of water per acre (5>646 cubic
meters).
Pfeiffer and Whittlesey's hydrologic and water quality model indicates
the changes in sediment loss that will accompany changes in water application.
rates. This information is plotted in Figure 16? A reduction of 0.705
acre-feet per acre (2,150 cubic meters per hectare) has a marked effect on
the sediment lost per irrigated acre (hectare). Figure 16 illustrates this
fact, showing a reduction in sediment loss from 1.74 tons per acre (3-9 ton
(metric) per hectare) to 1.04 tons per acre (2.33 ton (metric) per hectare)
a 40 percent reduction. The water quality improvement of the market crea-
tion would be partially offset by the fact that, although the sediment loss
in tons per acre from currently irrigated land would be reduced, the total
acreage irrigated under a market system would be increased. The increase is
calculated by determining how much land could be irrigated, with the fixed
water supply at each water application rate. Figure 17 illustrates the in-
crease in total acres (hectares) from 453,000 (183,329) to 523,000 (211,658),
that accompanies the decrease in water applied per irrigated acre (hectare).
The trends depicted in both Figure 16 and Figure 17 are then incorporated
into Figure 18. This figure illustrates the total sediment loss that accom-
panies each level of water application per irrigated acre (hectare). Total
sediment lost under the current legal allocation of water equals approximately
788,000 tons (714,861,780 kilograms) (see Figure 18). The establishment of
a water rental market would diminish the total sediment lost to a level of
about 544,000 tons (493,508,640 kilograms), a reduction of 31 percent (see
Figure 18).
Two factors suggest that the effect of the water market on water quality
is actually understated in the present analysis. Firstly, it is probable
that a higher percentage of the 788,000 tons (714,861,780 kilograms) of sedi-
ment currently lost from farms would actually reach the river than the 544,000
tons (493,508,640 kilograms) of sediment which would be lost under a market
system. This is due to the higher velocity of the larger quantity of water
which is carrying that sediment. Secondly, Pfeiffer and Whittlesey's model
is based on current water application methods. It seems likely that if a
water market were created and the farmer thereby experienced higher prices
for water, he would be induced to invest in capital or labor which would
cause the water to be used more efficiently, and thereby further reduce the
total sediment loss on his irrigated acreage.
This analysis indicates that the creation of a market for water would
bring about at least a 31 percent decrease in sedimentation and turbidity of
the Yakima River. At current sediment loss levels of 788,000 tons, maximum
turbidity averages 15 JTU in reaches of the stream with a 10 JTU standard,'
and 7 JTU in reaches with a 5 JTU standard. Even if the 31 percent reduction
in sediment loss from farms only reduced sediment levels in the stream by 31
percent, this change would be sufficient to bring the average turbidity into
compliance with Washington State Water quality standards, as illustrated in
100
-------
1.75
0
.00 4.25 ^-50 A.75 5-00
Quantity of Water (a.f./acre)
5.25
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.40^7 hectares
Figure 16. Per acre sediment loss.
-------
6.00 -
o
ro
t.OO 4.25 4,50 4.75 5.00 5-25
Quantity of Water (a.f./acre)
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.404? hectares
Figure 17- Irrigated acreage.
-------
o
VA)
8.00
6.00 -
o
o
o
o
o
o
- 4.00 -
(A
(/)
o
2.00 -
0)
to
4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5-00
Quantity of Water (a.f./acre)
5-25
1 acre-foot = 1,234 cubic meters.
1 acre = 0.404? hectares,
Figure 18. Total sediment losses.
-------
Figure 19- In fact, such a reduction would reduce turbidity to nearly one-
half of the current standards in many reaches.
If, in fact, the 135,000 (54,634) estimate of additional irrigable acreage
(hectares) is accurate, the equilibrium price would be around $50 per acre-
foot ($24.31 per thousand m3), the water application rate would be around 4
acre-feet per acre (12 thousand m3 per hectare), and the total sediment loss
would be reduced to about 180,000 tons (16,329,330 kilograms). The preceding
analysis, then, represents a very modest calculation of the rental market's
water improvement potential.
A point must be made as to the benefits of a water rental market. Cur-
rent irrigators would sell about 320,000 acre-feet (395 million cu. m.) of
water and receive approximately $4.5 million ?n payment. This would improve
the current irrigator's efficiency by allowing the sale of water with a low
marginal value in his current use to users with a high marginal value use,
resulting in a greater economic return from his water. The economy as a
whole would be benefitted as evidenced in Table 11 by the increase in net
crop income from $106,908,000 to nearly $120,000,000. These primary benefits
(Data points are medians
for this period)
Water
Quality
Standard
25-31%
reduction
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
River Mile
1 mile = 1.609 kilometers
Figure 19. Yakima River turbidity, 1974 irrigation season
(May 1 - October 31).
104
-------
were calculated by multiplying the per acre net income per crop at each water
application rate by the total number of acres irrigated in each case.
Additional secondary benefits would result from improved water quality.
State water quality standards for turbidity would be met, the general public
would benefit from the increased aesthetic and recreational qualities of the
Yakima River, and downstream irrigators would realize reduced sediment damage
to sprinkler systems. The fisheries may also benefit from cleaner water;
however, the market could exacerbate the low flow problem unless the fishery
interests were permitted to enter the market and purchase water for in-stream
use. Although the water quality improvement benefits have not been expressed
in monetary terms, it appears that these benefits would add substantially to
the total benefits resulting from establishing a water rental market.
But the key question remains that of a water rental market implementation.
It is obvious that the creation of a water rental market would involve signif-
icant physical, legal and social changes. The current system of water deliv-
ery in the Yakima Basin is generally based on a continuous flow delivery.
The majority of the irrigators in the Valley simply open their head gates at
the beginning of the irrigation season and the water continues to flow
throughout the season. The irrigator then rotates that flow among his fields.
With a continuous flow system, the delivery structures are designed for carry-
ing small amounts of water. Particularly at the lower end of an irrigation
system, the canals and ditches have very limited capacity. The creation of a
water rental market would require structural extension and expansion of
delivery systems. This would be necessary in order that any irrigator who
desires to purchase additional water could have that water delivered to his
land. It would also be required In order to extend irrigation to currently
non-irrigated land. Another structural change that would be required would be
the careful measurement of quantities of water delivered to each irrigator.
This would require additional manpower and the installation of accurate
measuring devices. A final physical problem that would result from market
establishment would be the reduction in return flow and/or the change in the
point of return to the river. Detailed hydrological modeling would be re-
quired to predict the effect of this phenomena. Such hydrologic modeling
would then play an important part in the total management of the river basin.
The creation of the water rental market would also involve several legal
changes. Annual water allotments must be made legally transferrable. This
would involve not only changes in Bureau of Reclamation administration, but
also clarification of water rights in the basin. Before irrigators can be
allowed to freely rent their water, the extent of their water right must be
determined and limited. Unless there was a reajudication of all water rights
in the Basin, the courts would be flooded with water rights disputes arising
from water transfers. Rather than handling these cases on a piecemeal basis,
a general adjudication would be preferable and perhaps necessary to add cer-
tainly and stability to a market process.
The tremendous complexity of such readjud?cat ion has been suggested by
both state officials and local individuals involved in water allocation.
Estimates of between five and ten years were given as the time required to
complete such an adjudication. A 196? study estimated the cost of a typical
105
-------
adjudication involving approximately thirty claimants at around $2,000. That
figure only included administrative costs for title reports, the salaries of
the referee, attorney general and survey crew, and other miscelleneous ex-
penses. These costs are exclusive of attorney fees for the water right
claimants. An adjudication involving thirty claimants has a potential of 870
controversies. In an adjudication involving 1,000 claimants, the potential
controversies arise to 990,000. An adjudication of the entire Yakima Basin
could involve thousands of claimants. The administrative costs alone could
easily approach $10 million or more.
Finally, it is expected that there may be considerable social resistance
to some of the changes that would be involved in a water rental market crea-
tion. Two areas of probable resistance are particularly noteworthy. First,
water right holders in the Valley fear an adjudication because the amount of
water they are presently receiving may be reduced thereby. This fear is
further accentuated by the threat of that the Yakima Indian nation may claim
a much greater quantity of the water than they are now receiving. Recent
court decisions involving Indian water rights have allowed the Indians to
divert all the water which they can beneficially use. Secondly, the irriga-
tors may resist the increased level of measurement that would accompany water
rental market activity. It has been estimated that the farmer probably
receives at least 30 percent more water than the amount for which he is cur-
rently charged. Thus, there is some initial risk involved in the creation of
a water market. However, it seems that increased certainty, flexibility and
profits may compensate for that initial risk.
Internalizing Externalities--
Most professional economists strongly endorse effluent charges or taxes
as a method for internalizing externalities (i.e., reducing pollution). In-
fluent charges represent the same basic principle and, while being a newer
concept, could expect to also be embraced. The potential benefits of these
plans are well documented in the literature. On the other hand, arguments
for effluent charges have not had a substantial effect on environmental
policy. There are several reasons for this divergence between the views of
economists and the actions of government.
Strong resistance to effluent charges obviously exists among those who
would be potentially taxed. By internalizing these costs of production, their
production costs would increase and, therefore, decrease their progit margin.
This group has a strong incentive to lobby against such charges.
There is also the question of property rights. In the case of agricul-
ture, farmers may claim that they have a previous right to affect the quality
of the water since their use predates those now in conflict. While the legal
basis of this argument is highly questionable, it nevertheless represents a
constraint to the implementation of effluent charges. The idea of an effluent
tax is also resisted simply because it is a tax. Taxes, in general, have
historically been resisted and an effluent tax, in particular, represents a
radical departure from current taxing policies.
Finally, there exists a bias among both government and business for legal
standards rather than taxes. Government's bias seems to exist largely due to
106
-------
greater familiarity of government personnel with legal measures. Business,
on the other hand, argues that once standards have been established it is
unnecessary and redundant to impose taxes.
Subsidies enjoy, perhaps, more popular acceptance than taxes. The rea-
sons seem obvious. The polluter is rewarded for cleaning up pollution rather
than penalized for polluting. Moreover, the source of thesubsidy is generally
spread over a large population so that individual costs are small. A tax on
polluters, on the other hand, may have large individual costs. Resistance to
subsidies, therefore, is diffuse.
Ultimately, the desirability of either a tax or a subsidy must depend
not on how vocal special interest groups can be, but on a weighing of the
social benefits and costs. Only when these benefits exceed the costs can
such programs be judged to be socially desirable.
Legal Evaluation
As mentioned in the introduction to this section, only solutions that were
considered implementable were described in some detail. Thus, the overall
research team evaluation took on two steps—the initial concern for what par-
ticular solutions have applicability in the Yakima Valley; and a more de-
tailed consideration based on group feedback of what solutions can be inte-
grated with the other disciplinary perspectives in order to produce a feasible
and acceptable approach to the problem-solving task and to an eventual
implementation strategy.
The three basic legal solutions described In the previous section are
considered the essential approaches for both short- and long-run success in
controlling the quality of irrigation return flows within the current state
water laws and federal reclamation laws. In this regard, a more detailed
and comprehensive approach has been suggested for the 17 western states by
Radosevich and Skogerboe in their EPA report to be published in late 1977
entitled "Achieving Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control Through Improved
Legal Systems."
The solution centering around the provision of criteria for beneficial
use and enforcement of these criteria Is considered not only realistic but
imperative in resolving the dilemma of irrigation return flow quality control.
Because of the interdependence that exists between the manner of exercising a
water right and the quality of return flows that arises from seepage, perco-
lation and tailwater runoff, any logical solution requires the legal and
administrative recognition of this physical relationship. The one element
that touches both the action and the consequence Is the concept of beneficial
use.
Research and demonstration projects have shown that proper water manage-
ment will reduce degradation in return flows In areas where the degradation
is significant. By defining criteria for water delivery, application and
removal, the erosion and sediment problem found in the Yakima Valley can be
addressed at the source of the problem In a preventative manner rather than
treating the solution in an expensive corrective fashion.
107
-------
From a legal point of view, the willingness and success of administrative
agency action to enforce beneficial use will be vastly increased when the per-
son(s) or entities causing or contributing to the problem are placed on the
defensive by having to prove their actions within the criteria for beneficial
use established by the agency. At the same time, the water user can remain
protected from the capricious or ill-founded allocations by the requirement
that the agency demonstrate that the criteria have been necessitated.
Removing the transfer restrictions can be a somewhat more difficult task.
Again, from the Washington water law point of view, there are no unreasonable
restrictions. At the federal law level, real location of water within irriga-
tion districts to other certified lands is a practice very common. In fact,
many irrigation districts have a "transfer book." It is considered legal,
feasible and appropriate that the irrigation districts in the Yakima Valley
would also enter into a cooperative sharing of total water rights held by the
various districts collectively, with the concurrence of the Bureau of Reclam-
ation and DOE.
The last legal solution concerns the stimulation of the use of low or no
interest funding for water quality improvements by irrigation districts and
individauls in areas where the quality of return flow is a probelm. This
would require a policy change and program reorientation. But, this incentive
is well within existing precedent for water quality improvement funding to
non-point source discharges in the municipal and industrial categories. Part
of the difficulty is to determine how significant the problem from irrigated
agriculture is, and if it really is considered significant this would justify
policy and program modification.
Social Evaluation
The critical concern regarding the solutions is to have the individual
water user involved in a program to clean up irrigation return flows. While
the main report of this research centers on the process of implementation of
such a program, the present section concentrates on some specific exemplary
solutions that may allow the desired involvement. In any case, at both the
individual and the organizational levels, the solutions are designed to
stimulate involvement through a process of awareness and legitimization.
At the individual level, the awareness to the problem begins by showing
the people the problem and the contribution made by irrigation to the prob-
lem. Yet, it is obvious that awareness alone will not necessarily induce
action. One must also have the information available to know how to solve
the problem. The purpose of the solution calling for more research is to
provide that information to provide a greater range of alternatives for the
individual water user. Finally, the ability to get people involved in! an'
implementation process concerned with the introduction of new water manage-
ment practices will depend on how such a process is managed.
The development of a common definition of the problem is a necessary part
of providing the impetus for a concentrated type of action. Obtaining this
definition may be difficult and it may end up being nothing more than a set
of parameters that are influenced by individual operations. Yet, if the
108
-------
procedure for determining an intolerable degree of degradation is accepted,
a motivating basis for further action will be established.
Finally, creating a greater degree of participation in irrigation dis-
trict matters will provide the framework for greater involvement. It may not
make the implementation of any single alternative easier, but it can create a
situation in which the seeds of change can be more easily planted and further
steps undertaken.
As previously stated, unless there is an organizational network that is
supportive of change, the emphasis on the individual user alone will not prove
to be the most effective mechanism to create change. The same strategy of
awareness, information, legitimacy, and involvement applies to the organiza-
tional level as well as to the individual. Thus, organizational solutions
emphasize the obtaining of knowledge and the ability to disseminate informa-
tion as critical features for setting the stage for legitimacy and
involvement. Legitimacy can be achieved by establishing a clear-cut authori-
tative structure and by utilizing this authority in an appropriate manner.
The thrust of all involvement efforts during an implementation process rests
also on the establishment of a regional authority. This organizational
mechanism can create a situation that increases awareness, produces informa-
tion, establishes legitimacy, and promotes involvement. At the end, it can
become the institutional framework from which strategies emphasizing indivi-
dual involvement can emerge.
In conclusion, in evaluating the social situation and the solutions
evolving out of this situation, there is one critical overriding concern:
both the individual water user and the organizational network surrounding
that user regarding irrigation must be the focus of concern. Programs in-
volving water management procedures must be flexible enough to include the
specific individual situation while, at the same time, the overall objectives
of a clean water program are carried out. This implies an organizational
structure that facilitates individual involvement so that change (shared and
legitimized) can be carried out. This type of program will demand extensive
resources both in manpower and money in order to be administered
appropriately.
The broad concluding remarks of a social evaluation of potential solu-
tions brings full circle the' general effort of assessing through interdisci-
plinary dialogue the research team's estimation of the range of approaches
suggested with regard to irrigation return flow quality measures. At this
point, field "testing" of the team's assessment becomes imperative.
FIELD ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
The research team's preliminary evaluation and screening of alternative
measures for improving irrigation return flow quality resulted in a summary
table of possible solutions along with a preliminary indication of their ben-
efits and costs. This information is summarized in Table 12. Possible sol-
utions are categorized with respect to the stage of water use at which they
109
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY.
MEASURES
1. RETURN FLOW
A. Discharge
Permit System
B. Effluent Tax
C. District or
Area
Treatment
D. Subsidies on
On-Farm
Treatment
BENEFITS
Water dual ity
Improvement
Sediment
(Phosphate
1 (Nitrate
Variable with
quota levels
permitted.
Variable with
tax level.
100% 90* 30%
90% 60% W%.
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.
Reduction of downstream
costs of water use.
Increased recrea. value.
Some improvement to fish.
Burden of pollution con-
trol 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
amona districts.
Reduce farmer's financial
burden of adjustment.
Large reduction of down-
stream water use costs.
Some improvement to fish.
Incentive to more
efficient farming.
Greater integration of
farmer into water
quality arena.
COSTS
Monetary
Very high monitor-
ing and enforce-
ment costs.
Very high monitor-
ing and enforce-
ment costs.
$1.3-$10.2 million-
capital costs +
$75,000-$!, 7^0, 000-
operation and
maintenance cost
per year.
$2l|0,000-capital
costs +
$75,000 O&M 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
strain between
users and
taxing
officials.
Increased organ- •
izational
g rowth .
Compl icates
fa rme r ' s
operations.
Outside interfer-
ence in farm
operations.
DESIRABILITY
Farmers and state
officials unen-
thusiastic.
Federal support
for program.
No clear support
for this
action.
General reluctance
to paying the
high costs of
this measure.
Farmers may support
this measure.
CONSTRAINTS
Resistance to arbi-
trary outside
restrictions.
Enforcement diffi-
cult due to local
resistance and lack
of evidence.
Resistance to taxation.
Difficult to equitably
determine who should
be taxes and how much.
Farmer resistance to
financing; or
Public resistance to
financing.
Difficulty in financ-
ing-pub) ic
resistance.
Not effective for
farmers who cannot
or wi 1 1 not obtain
subsidies.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12(continued)
MEASURES
II. ON-FARM
PRACTICES
A. Improved
Tailwater
Management
B. Tailwater
Ponds wi th
Recirculation
B. Improved
Application
Methods
1) Contour
Furrows
2) Sprinkler
Irrigation
3) Trickle
1 rrigation
C. Improved Land
and Water
Management
1) Precise
Water
Measurement
2) Irrigation
Schedul Ing
BENEFITS
Water dual ity
Improvement
Sediment
Phosphate
1 Nitrate
90% 90% 10%
100% 100% 40%
70% 70% 1 0%
100% 100% 70%
100% 100% 90%
Varies with
resulting
decrease
in water
appl Icatlon.
30% 30% 50%
Other
Prevention of soil loss
Reduction of downstream
water use costs.
Some improvement to fish.
Prevention of soil loss.
Lower water 6 fertilizer
needs .
Reduction of downstream
water use costs.
Large improvements 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
noeds.
COSTS
Monetary
$20/acre-capital
costs; +
$6 acre-06M per
year.
$250/acre-capital
costs; +
$12/acre-06M per
year.
Labor costs
increase.
$225-$1 ,500/acre-
capital costs; +
$56-$121/acre OsM.
$1,000-$1,300/acre.
Measuring devices
and labor costs.
Computer costs,
technical assist'
ance costs,
Increased on-farm
labor costs.
Other
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Possible damage
to downstream
water rights
due to reduced
return flow.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations .
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Compl icates
farmer's
operations.
Less flexibility
for farmer.
DESIRABILITY
This is practiced
in Wapato
Project
currently.
More farmers are
installing 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
acceptabi 1 i ty and
deslrabi 11 ty.
Some farmers are cur-
rently using these
practices to a degree
CONSTRAINTS
Low cost, abundant
water supplies inhi-
bit reuse practices.
Courts may rule against
such measures due to
injury to downstream
users.
Resistance to a more
time consuming
practice.
High capital costs.
Past bad experience
with trickle
systems.
High capital costs.
Farmers wi 1 1 resist
any decrease in
the! r water
del 1 veries.
Resistance to change
to more complex,
. time-consuming
This suggests at least practices.
acceptabi 1 1 ty and
desirability.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
MEASURES
3) Improved
Fertil Izer
Practices
k) Improved
Cropping
Patterns
5) hmp roved
Cultiva-
tion
Practices
D. Specification
of Beneficial
Use
1) Quantity
by Crop
Type, etc.
2) To Incor-
porate
Water
Quality.
E. Subsidize
Irri gators
1) Technical,
Educational
Aid.
2) Cost-sharing
Capital-
1 mprovemen ts
3) Incentive
Payments
BENEFITS
Water Quality
Improvement
SedlPhos I Nit
0% 50% 70%
Variable
Variable
Variable
with levels
specified.
Could attain
any des i red
level of
water
qua) ity.
Will corres-
pond with
improvement
to be
subsidized.
Wi 1 1 corres-
pond with
i mp rovemen t
to be
subsidized.
Wi 1 1 corres-
pond wi th
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
costs.
Improvement to recrea.
and fisheries.
COSTS
Monetary
Educational program
costs.
Increased application
costs.
Educational program
costs.
Equipment and labor
costs increase.
Educational program
costs.
Increased manpower
in state agencies
for specification
and monitoring.
Increased manpower
in state agencies
for specification
and moni tor ing.
Higher manpower
costs.
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 wl th new
practices.
DESIRABILITY
Some farmers are now
using these practices
CONSTRAINTS
Resistance to change
to more complex,
to a degree. This sug- time-consuming
gests at least accept- practices.
abi 1 ity £ desirabi 1 ity.
Some farmers are now
using these practices
to a degree. This sug-
gests at least accept-
abil ity £ desirabi 1 i ty
Some farmers are now
using these practices
to a degree. This sug-
gests at least accept-
abi 1 i ty £ desirabi 1 ity
Agencies which could
handle the subsidies
a I ready exist £ are
general ly successful
in Yakima area.
Agencies which could
handle the subsidies
already exist £ are
generally successful
in Yakima area.
Agencies which could
handle the subsidies
al ready exist £ are
generally successful
in Yakima area.
Resistance to change
to more complex,
time-consuming
practices.
Resistance to change
to more complex,
time-consuming
practices.
Limited funding.
Limited funding.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12(continued)
MEASURES
III. DELIVERY
A. Read judi cat ion
1) To el iminate
Uncertainty
2) To Incorpor-
ate Benefi-
cial 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
Delivery
System
IV. RIVER FLOW
A. Stabilize
1) Additional
Storage
2) Ground
BENEFITS
Water Qua] Ity
Improvement
Sed | Phos Nit
Will corres-
pond with de-
crease in
water appli-
cation rate.
Variable with
levels speci-
fied.
Could attain
any level of
water quality.
Will corres-
pond with de-
crease in water
app.l ication rate
Will provide
more water
which could
be left in
stream.
Variable with
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
efficient water use.
Prevention of soil loss.
Reduction of downstream
cos ts .
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 fisheries.
Encourages multiple use
of river.
High benefit to fisheries.
Encourage multiple use
of river.
Reservoir recreation.
COSTS
Monetary
Adjudication would
take hundreds of
man years and cost
mi 1 1 ions of dol lars
to complete.
Very expensive to
instal 1 new
del I very
systems.
Reduces agricultural
income.
$28,000,000.
Cost of adjudica-
tion if needed.
Labor costs
increase.
High cost of dam
construction.
Other
Inducement of
conf 1 ict.
Disincentive to
farming.
Less flexibility.
Possible recrea-
tion 6 wi Ider-
ness loss.
Possible loss of
wl Idllfe habitat
dut to lowering
water table.
DESIRABILITY
The feeling in state
agencies 6 among
water users is
against adjudication
proceedings.
Broad recognition
of need.
Taxation would find
1 i ttle support.
No clear support.
Unclear.
Strong local
support.
Weak local
support.
CONSTRAINTS
Fear of reduction in
water rights,
especial ly with
Indian claims.
Funding source.
Resistance to
taxation.
Uncertain of meaning
and effects.
Need for
read judi cat ion.
Farmers may resist
the decreased
flexibility.
Farmers may resist
add! t lonal
i ndebledness .
-------
would be applicable. The four categories are (return flow, on-farm practices,
on-farm delivery, and river flow.
Table 12 has provided the basic structure and scheme for further eval-
uation of the possible solutions. Thus, it became the starting point for
discussions with state and federal agencies, water managers and water users.
The remarks that follow deal with the responses of these groups in terms of
the four categories of adjustments identified. It should be noted that from
a hydrologic standpoint, the discussion is backwards, i.e., working upstream.
This is intentional, however, since experience in other areas indicated that
by initially discussing the most familiar topic, namely the NPDES program at
the field, not only interest was generated but a more free-flowing discussion
of problems and proposed solutions became possible.
Return Flow Adjustments
Return flow measures include: a) the discharge permit system; b) an
effluent tax; c) distinct or area treatment; and d) subsidies to on-farm
treatment. The discharge permit system is the same as the current NPDES
program. An effluent tax program would attempt to regulate return flow
pollution by assessing an increasingly greater tax on higher levels of
pollution. District or area treatment would treat return flow ater before
it reaches the river. Finally, subsidies to on-farm treatment would encour-
age farmers to treat their own return flow before it reaches the river
either through direct cash payments or with construction assistance.
In general, there was agreement among those interviewed that the water
quality improvement benefits of the discharge permit system would vary with
the quota levels permitted. Furthermore, it was generally agreed that a
permit system could be a possible incentive to more efficient farming; it
would reduce downstream costs of water use and increase the recreational
value of the river; and it would provide greater control over small, part-
time farmers. Considerable disagreement exists, however, with the role of
the small farmer, whether he is part-time or not. Typically, administrators
at all levels have a tendency to view the small farmer as inefficient and,
consequently, as a significant source of return flow pollution, The small
farmers, on the other hand, argue that because of their size they expend
greater managerial effort per unit of land than do the very large farmers
and, therefore, represent an insignificant share of the problem. The small
farmer also sees many of the measures proposed as having a disproportionate
cost for them as compared to their contribution to the problem. Finally,
while most people interviewed did not respond to the permit system's effect
On fisheries, those that did so agreed that the effect would be positive.
Generally, the discharge permit system is not very popular with arty of
the groups interviewed. It is most popular with state and Federal agericy i
people who see it as a "club" to force poor irrigators to improve their
operations. Water managers and especially water users tend not to favor
the permit system and view it as a penalty on good farmers. Moreover,
they argue, and perhaps not surprisingly so, that the emphasis should be
on voluntary action by the farmers.
1H
-------
The monetary costs of the discharge permit system are recognized to be
high by all groups^interviewed, because of the necessity of monitoring and
enforcing the permits. Other costs are generally nonpecuniary and accrue at
the local level. While state and federal agencies tend to discount such
costs, water managers and users recognize the costs in terms of the loss of
a farmer's control over his operations, increased strain within irrigation
districts and pecuniary as well as social costs of continuous litigation.
Most support for the permit system is found at the federal level. State
agencies, particularly the Department of Ecology, are less enthusiastic,
though there Is some attraction to such a scheme. Water managers and users
are almost universally opposed to such a system. Thus, the major constraint
to implementation of the permit system is strong resistance at the local
level. Needless to say, the difficulty of administering the permit system
adds to this resistance and to a wider acceptability of such an approach to
controlling return flow.
There was less reaction to the effluent tax plan than to the permit sys-
tem. This is interesting since administratively both approaches are very
similar. The difference, of course, is that the permit system has become
more familiar and a focal point of the entire debate concerning water pollu-
tion from agriculture. Most persons interviewed agreed that the water qual-
ity benefits realized from an effluent tax would depend upon the tax level.
Other recognizable benefits of this alternative are that it would generate
revenues which could be used for other water quality improvement measures.
It would also provide an incentive for more efficient farming, downstream
water use costs would be reduced, the recreational value of the river would
be increased, there might be some improvement of fisheries, and, finally,
the burden of pollution reduction would be placed on those polluting the
water. Like the permit system, however, the effluent tax would have high
monitoring and enforcement costs. Also, it could provide a disincentive to
some farming and create a strain between the farmers and the taxing body
(i.e., the state or federal government). In the interviews conducted, there
was no clear support nor opposition to this plan. Often responses indicated
a lack of understanding. In this regard, constraints to the implementation
of such a plan would include a resistance to taxation in general as well as
the concern of many with the equitable administration of such a tax.
District or area treatment of return flow has potentially large Water
quality benefits. Other benefits of such a measure would include reduced
downstream water use costs, increased recreational value of the river, im-
proved fisheries and the possibility of greater unity and coordination among
the irrigation districts. Costs of such a measure, however, are also large.
depending upon the size of such facilities, capital costs could range from
$1.3 to $10.2 million and operating and maintenance costs could range from
$75,000 to $1,740,000. Furthermore, there would also be the associated
costs of organizational growth.
Typically, there is resistance to the district or area treatment alterna-
tive. In part, this is a function of the large pecuniary costs of such a
system. There is also the feeling that the problem of coordination and con-
trol of such a system is unsolvable within current financial and institutional
115
-------
constraints. In large part, the seemingly unequal distribution of benefits
and costs of such a system represents the major constraint to its adoption.
Subsidies to on-farm treatment of return flow could reduce sediment sig-
nificantly and phosphates and nitrates to a lesser degree. However, the
non-pecuniary benefits listed for the previous adjustments would also be pre-
sent. Capital costs would be approximately $2^0,000 with operation and maint-
enance costs of $75,000 per year. Additionally, such a system could compli-
cate a farmer's operations and impose outside interferences on his activities
with all associated social costs for running an extensive program. The
desirability of this alternative is largely a function of the source and size
of the subsidies. Farmers resist financing such a plan themselves and desire
most of the support to come from other sources. Similarly, government agen-
cies look to some higher source for funding. Again, a major difficulty of
this plan is associating benefits with costs.
On-Farm Adjustments
The on-farm measures include: a) improved tailwater management, either
through tailwater ponds or tailwater ponds with recirculation; b) improved
application methods through contour furrows, sprinkler irrigation, or trickle
irrigation; c) improved land and water management through precise water meas-
urement, irrigation scheduling, improved fertilizer practices, improved crop-
ping patterns, or improved cultivation practices; d) specification of benefi-
cial use through restrictions of quantity by crop type or an incorporation of
water quality considerations in water rights; and, 3) subsidization of irriga-
tors to provide technical and educational aid, cost-sharing of capital
improvements, or incentive payments for water quality improvements.
With regard to the field assessment of each of the above, improved tail-
water management could significantly reduce sediment and phosphates, but would
only reduce nitrates slightly. Other benefits would include the prevention
of soil loss, reduction of downstream water use and costs and increased rec-
reational and fisheries value. In addition, recirculation could reduce water
and ferti1izer -needs. Tailwater ponds have a capital cost of approximately
$50 per hectare ($20 per acre) and operation and maintenance costs of $15
per hectare ($6 per acre) per year. Tailwater ponds with recirculation have
capital costs of $620 per hectare ($250 per acre) and operation and mainte-
nance costs of $25 per hectare ($12 per acre) per year. Both tailwater
management schemes have the potential of complicating the farmer's operations,
while recirculation might also damage downstream water rights. That improved
tailwater management through the use of tailwater ponds is desirable can be
deduced from the widespread current application of such measures in the
Yakima Valley. Recirculation Is even practiced in one district—the Wapato.
Constraints to adoption of this measure include some farmers' short-run;lack
of concern for soil loss, the relatively low cost and abundant supply of water
and legal uncertainties regarding junior rights.
It is generally agreed that various measures for improving water appli-
cation methods could have significant beneficial effects on water quality,
especially sedimentation. Moreover, in addition to the benefits directly
associated with improved water quality, such measures could also benefit the
116
-------
land. Of the three measures Identified for improving application of water,
contour furrows have the lowest anticipated water quality benefits. Both
sprinkler and trickle irrigation methods have potentially large water quality
benefits, as well as the general potential for increasing productivity.
Sprinkler irrigation has the additional advantage of being able to be adapted
to frost protection.
Contour furrows, however, increase labor costs. Sprinkler irrigation
entails capital costs of from $550 to $3,700 per hectare ($225 to $1,500 per
acre), plus operation and maintenance costs of $140 to $300 per hectare
($56 to $121 per acre). And, trickle irrigation costs roughly $2,500 to
$3,200 per hectare ($1,000 to $1,300 per acre). But, above everything else,
all such measures tend to increase the complexity of the farmer's operation.
Of the three methods of improving water application, sprinkler irrigation
is the most favored in the Yakima Valley. This derives from its dual purpose,
i.e., irrigation and frost protection. On the one hand, rising labor costs
have made more capital intensive practices more attractive; and, on the other
hand, increased air quality standards have made traditional frost protection
devices which burn various substances less desirable. The growth of sprink-
ler irrigation in the Valley is impressive, but it has not been directly
induced by water quality considerations. Trickle irrigation seems to have a
bad reputation in the Valley due to uneven experience with its earlier intro-
duction. The first trickle systems were improperly designed and installed
and functioned poorly. Finally, contour furrows are resisted because of their
additional time requirements in construction and maintenance.
Anticipated water quality benefits from improved land and water manage-
ment measures can not be clearly delineated due to the variability of appli-
cation of these measures. Precise water management is seen as a means of
facilitating water management through the availability of better data.
Irrigation scheduling and improved fertilizer practices could reduce phos-
phates and nitrates in return flow while simultaneously lowering fertilizer
needs. Improved cropping patterns and cultivation practices may also con-
tribute to water quality. The costs associated with these alternatives do
not appear particularly high. Nevertheless, some farmers, although aware of
these measures, have not voluntarily adopted them, while others have.
Education and/or financial constraints do not appear significant. Resistance
to change, partly the result of adherence to traditional practices, however,
is perhaps the most significant constraint along with uncertainties of out-
come of changes for a given farmer.
The specification of beneficial use alternatives could improve return
flow quality through a restricting of the amount of water applied by crop or
by incorporating quality considerations into use rights. Either alternative
seems capable of producing significant water quality benefits along with all
other ancillary benefits identified above. Costs are largely in terms of
additional manpower requirements for specification and administration of law.
State and federal agencies are generally favorable to this idea; farmers
represent the major potential constraint because of uncertainty on their part
with respect to consequences for them or the far-reaching effects of such a
measure.
117
-------
Finally, Irrlgators may be subsidized either through technical and educa-
tional aid, cost-sharing of capital improvements, or incentive payments.
Water quality benefits would correspond with the improvement to be subsidized.
Costs would involve the subsidy itself and management costs. In large part,
the agencies which could administer such subsidies already exist and do suc-
cessfully administer subsidies in the Yakima Valley. The major constraint to
this adjustment is the availability of funding as well as the question of who
would pay and who would obtain the benefits.
Delivery Adjustments
Possible solutions related to the delivery system include: a) reajudica-
tion either to eliminate uncertainty regarding the quantity of water allotted,
to incorporate the concept of beneficial use, or to allow districts ot utilize
return flow; b) system rehabilitation; c) a tax on water in order to reduce
its wasteful use; d) creation of a water rental market; and e) establishment
of a demand delivery system. Generally, it was agreed by those interviewed
that the major cause of return flow pollution in the Yakima Valley is that
farmers receive and use excess quantities of water. In other words, the
delivery or allocation system is faulty. The adjustments and reactions dis-
cussed in this section revolve around potential corrections of this fault.
Readjudicat ion of water rights would have varying benefits depending
upon the intent of the readjudication. In general, the benefits would vary
directly with the resulting decrease in water application. Additional bene-
fits would include increased certainty of water rights, soil loss prevention,
reduced downstream costs, improved recreation and fisheries and an incentive
for more efficient water use. The costs of readjudication are difficult to
assess, but experiences from other areas indicate that they may be in terms
of hundreds of man years, millions of dollars, and of unmeasurable social
conflict. Even more, among those interviewed, considerable disagreement
existed regarding these costs and their allocation.
There was little support by either the agencies, water managers, or
water users for readjudication. The major fear centered around the uncertain-
ty of the eventual outcome of such an action. Of particular concern was the
question of the water rights of the Yakima Indians in the Wapato District.
Court decisions involving water rights of Indians in other states are viewed
by non-Indians in the Yakima Valley as favoring the Indians to the detriment
of the rest of the population. No wonder, then, that few non-Indian water
right holders favor a reexamination of these rights.
System rehabilitation is anticipated to benefit water quality by allow-
ing more water to remain in the stream and by improving the monitoring and
control of the water diverted. In addition, there would be downstream bene-
fits to water users, fisheries and recreation. The dollar cost of such'an)
adjustment, however, would be particularly high.
The water quality benefits of a tax on water, although potentially large,
vary with the level of taxation. In addition, benefits would include the pre-
vention of soil loss, reduced downstream costs of water use, improved recre-
ation and fisheries, and perhaps, most importantly, the potential polluter
118
-------
would be paying the cost. On the cost side, there would be a redistribution
of income with agricultural incomes potentially declining. Many agency, water
manager and water user personnel, however, viewed such a measure as a viable
future alternative. In part, this acceptance is a function of their realiza-
tion that the current system of taxing land with water heavier than land
without water is a form of a tax on water. Overall, constraints to such an
adjustment include the general resistance to taxation, the Bureau of Reclam-
ation's lack of legal ability to increase water prices, questions regarding
water quality effects, and concern over the distribution of tax revenues
generated.
A water rental market has large potential water quality benefits as well
as preventing soil loss, reducing downstream water use costs and improving
recreation and fisheries. Moreover, farm incomes could be increased by
approximately $70 million while increasing the farmer's flexibility and phy-
sical efficiency of water use. The major cost of this adjustment seems to
be the likely need for a readjudication of water rights. Among those inter-
viewed, there was no clear support for this adjustment. This reaction seems
to be largely due to a lack of familiarity or exposure to this alternative.
Furthermore, there is always in the background pervasive concern and appre-
hension with the possible need for the readjudication of water rights.
It is not clear what the water quality benefits of a demand delivery
system would be. Such a system would appear to reduce waste and to contrib-
ute to such things as reducing soil loss, reducing downstream water use costs,
and increasing recreational and fisheries values. Such a system would entail
higher labor costs, particularly for management. It might also reduce indi-
vidual farmer flexibility. Desirability of such an approach was seldom made
clear, perhaps because of a lack of specification of its operation. Farmers
did perceive the potential of a system to restrict their operations but did
not find such an approach desirable.
River Flow Adjustments
Measures to stabilize and perhaps augment river flow include the con-
struction of additional storage facilities upstream and ground water pumping.
The water quality benefits of these measures are not certain, but the antici-
pated benefits would be in terms of diluting existing pollutants. Additional
benefits would include large benefits to the lower river fisheries, possible
multiple use of the river, and advantages from recreation on reservoirs con-
structed. Both options for adjusting river flow would have high capital
costs, with the construction of additional storage being the highest. Other
costs might include loss of wilderness and recreation and destruction of wild-
life habitats. Within the Valley, both water managers and users favor addi-
tional storage. The Bumping Lake Project to construct more storage has had
strong local support. This support, however, Is largely a function of the
desire for more water and is not necessarily due to any concern with water
quality. The major constraint to additional storage is the construction cost
and the farmer's resistance to more indebtedness.
Ground water pumping is typically resisted by local farmers due to its
initial capital costs of $5,600 to $10,000 per well and operation costs of
119
-------
$7 to $10 per acre. Furthermore, rising energy costs are anticipated to
further increase such operating costs.
The field assessment of potential solutions provided a realistic back-
drop against which further sharpening of the range of alternatives, their
advantages and disadvantages, and appropriate trade-offs could be pursued.
In terms of developing a basis for implementation, a final evaluation must be
made as to the evolution of cogent "packages" of appropriate, acceptable and
implementable solutions.
SUMMARY OF TESTING RESULTS
As outlined previously, a first evaluation was conducted 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 criter-
ia of general technical, economic, legal, and social feasibility. Obviously
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 water 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
acceptabili ty.
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
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.
A third evaluation was completed by managers of water supply agencies
(e.g., irrigation companies and districts) and their boards of directors.
These 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 one at a time.
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
120
-------
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.
Looking over the previous material, the alternative solutions proposed
for evaluation ranged from those which were wholly technical (e.g., rehabili-
tation of distribution systems) to those which were institutional (e.g.,
creation of water markets). Some were combinations of technical and insti-
tutional measures which would cause improvements in quality of return flows
(e.g., cost-sharing arrangements 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, generally those which would
increase supply.
Responses to all such solutions depended somewhat on who was doing the
evaluating. Administrators were more inclined to favor technical solutions
since they were the ones most familiar to the agency personnel. They were
inclined to prefer measures that they could control and administer, as their
experience was largely with water development and water treatment. Users
tended to prefer those solutions which emphasized management of water in
agriculture. They were aware of some inefficiencies in water use and they
knew of possibilities for improved management. Managers of distribution sys-
tems were aware of inadequacies in their systems and liked generally proposals
for improvement. 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 reductions in their annual allocations.
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, for in two of the project areas water alloca-
tions are usually large, i.e., there is an abundant supply. The managers of
distribution 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 traditionally carefully guarded. There was some interest
in water markets, as means for reallocating supplies, but unfam?1iarity with
such a measure and lack of specificity prevented enthusiastic support.
The "testing" process itself as part of the assessment of potential solu-
tions can be judged both a success and a failure. It was a success in terms
of the objective of this study, namely, building the basis for implementing
121
-------
measures for improving irrigation return flow quality. It failed, however,
in the sense of clearly defining a specific program for implementation. This
should not be surprising. After all, one can see in all previous pages the
extensive range of technical solutions and the relative paucity of institu-
tional measures. The jump from appropriate solutions to implementation strat-
egies requires a much wider strategy of social mobilization and of strategic
interventions through interlocking steps of problem identification, generation
of alternatives, assessment, evaluation, and public acceptance.
Thus, the assessment process and especially reality "testing" is itera-
tive in that it involves the mutual education of those performing the testing
as well as those being tested. That is, the testing process is not one of
determining absolutes, but of providing a dialogue leading to possible com-
binations of packages of alternative solutions. Possible solutions were
modified, added or deleted during the testing process as the research team
became more aware of intricacies and specificities of the problem. On the
other hand, responses from federal and state agency personnel, water managers
and water users tended to alter over time as they too became more aware and
better educated in the problem.
Perhaps the flexibility of the assessment process was its greatest
attribute and the vital element in the building of an implementation basis.
While the laboratory scientist might hesitate to identify the process as a
test, it produced greater insights and the potential for long-run solutions
which no rigid experiment could have provided. The flexibility of the assess-
ment process contributed also to the productivity of the effort. In the most
succinct form possible, the major conclusion is that the heart of the problem
rests with the institutional framework through which water is managed. Even
more, this framework is not immutable but can be changed from both within and
from exogenous forces.
While the assessment process did not identify a specific solution for
problems of irrigation return flow in the Valley, it did generate possible
solution packages. In discussing individual solutions with various agencies,
water managers and water users, inevitably the discussion would lead to the
identification of one or more possible combinations as being the optimum mix.
Needless to say, the tendency was to identify the physical adjustments
as the first step. In part, this probably follows from the greater familiar-
ity with such measures, as well as with the visibility and immediacy of tech-
nological solutions. But almost immediately these physical solutions were
amended with or qualified by social, legal and economic considerations.
For example, physical measures to improve on-farm management tended to
be popular, but with these adjustments were nearly always combined economic
schemes to share the cost of constructing these improvements. Also, most
individuals interviewed were reluctant to foresake the legal option of penal-
izing those water users not responding to inducements to improve on-farm water
management. Finally, the social acceptance of any plan was of prime concern.
Since practically all those interviewed were in the administration and imple-
mentation side of the problem rather than the funding side, social acceptabil-
ity was normally viewed as being enhanced by the "carrot" as opposed to the
"stick" approach.
122
-------
In the final analysis, no universal solution package evolved from the
assessment process. The assessment process, in fact, was not designed to
develop such a package. It could, however, be easily used for developing
solution packages, since it now is obvious that the types of persons inter-
viewed exhibited also the tendency to think in holistic rather than atomistic
te rms.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the thrust of this research was
not to provide the "solution" to problems of irrigation return flow in any
of the case studies. The process itself (of generating appropriate solutions
and of testing for their eventual implementabi1ity) was the focus of attention
as the central axis for articulating in the main report necessary steps that
would link the problem, potential solutions and attainable strategies into
definable means for implementing both the spirit and the letter of PL 92-500
and of the broader social wish for a safe, productive and fulfilling
envi ronment.
123
-------
REFERENCES
Bell, Milo and Brian W. Mar. 1974. Model Development and Systems Analysis
of the Yakima River Basin: Fisheries. Report No. 17F, State of
Washington Water Research Center (November).
Carl Me, B. L. 1972. Sediment Control in Yakima Valley. Managing Irrigated
Agriculture to Improve Water Quality. Proc. of the Natl. Conf. on
Managing Irrigated Agriculture to Improve Water Quality. May.
Pp. 77-82.
CH2M/HI11, Inc. 1974. Characterization of Present Water Quality Conditions.
Draft. Yakima Basin Water Quality Management Plan (January).
CH2M/HI11, Inc. 1975. Agricultural Return Flow Management in the State of
Washington: A Case Study of the Yakima Basin. Water Resources Informa-
tion Systems Technical Bulletin No. 8 (April).
. 1970. Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study.
Department of Ecology. 1974. Yakima Basin Study: Water Management Policies
of the Department of Ecology for the Yakima Basin. Draft #1 for the
State of Washington (September 18).
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975- River Basin Water Quality Status
Report: Yakima River Basin. Survei1 lance and Analysis Division, Region
X, Seattle, Washington.
Hagan, R.M., H.R. Haise and T.W. Edminster (editors). 1967. Irrigation
of Agricultural Lands. Monograph No. 11, American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Keller, Jack and David Karmeli. 1975- Trickle Irrigation Design. Rain
Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corp., Glendora, California.
Mech, Stephen J. and Dwight D. Smith. 1967. Water Erosion Under Irrigation.
In: Irrigation of Agricultural Lands, Chapter 48, R.M. Hagan, H.R.
Haise and T.W. Edminster (editors). Agronomy Monograph No. 11,
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1970. Appendix V, Volume I,
Water Resources (April), pp. 277-344.
Pacific Northwest River Commission. 1971. Appendix VIII. Land Measures
and Watershed Protection (May), pp. 215-259-
124
-------
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1971. Appendix XII. Water Qual-
ity and Pollution Control (December), pp. 137-169.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1972. Columbia-North Pacific
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Main Report (September), 373 p.
Pfeiffer, George H. and Norman K. Whittlesey. 1975. Economic Impacts of
Controlling Water Quality in the Yakima River Basin. Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron Wildawsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley,
California: U. of California Press.
Radosevich, G. E. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1977- "Achieving Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control Through Improved Legal Systems. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Skogerboe, G. V., W. R. Walker, J. H. Taylor, and R. S. Bennett. 197^.
Evaluation of Irrigation Scheduling for Salinity Control in Grand
Valley. Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-74-052.
Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. June.
Sylvester, Robert 0. and Robert W. Seabloom. 1963. Quality and Significance
of Irrigation Return Flow. J. Irrigation and Drainage Division. Proc.
Amer. Society of Civil Engineers 88, pp. 1-27-
U.S. Department of Agriculture^ Soi1 Conservation Service. 197^. Yakima-
Kittitas Resource Conservation and Development Project Plan. Spokane,
Washington (December).
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1972. Land Development and
Water Use: Yakima River Basin. Washington State University.
Washington Irrigation Company. 1902. Sunnyside Irrigation Canal-Washington
Irrigation Company Proprietor (3rd Edition). Seattle: Lawman and
Stanford Stationary and Printing Company.
125
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agnew, Allen F. and Russell W. Busch. 1971. Interstate Ground Water Aquifers
of the State of Washington (Physical and Legal Problems--A Preliminary
Assessment). Report No. 8—Completion Report. State of Washington
Water Research Center. Pullman (September).
Agricultural Research Center. 1972. Irrigation Development Potential and
Economic Impacts Related to Water Use for the Yakima River Basin. Re-
port submitted to the Yakima Valley Natural Resources Development
Association. Pullman, Washington State University (April 15).
. Ahtanum Unit: Water Requirements. Yakima Project, Washington.
Barkley, P. W., e£ aj_. 1970. Part A: Guidelines for Establishing Economic
and Engineering Flood Criteria. Report No. k, State of Washington
Water Research Center (June).
Bell, Milo C. 1971. Study B: Water Demands for Enhancement of Fisheries
(Food and Growth). State of Washington Water Research Center Report
No. 3A (December).
Betchart, Will B. 197^. Model Development and Systems Analysis of the
Yakima River Basin. Report No. 17D, State of Washington Water Research
Center (November).
Bogue, Bill. (No date). Yakima River Basin Profile. Report (draft) sub-
mitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Boucher, P.R. 1975- Reconnaissance Study of Sediment Transport by Selected
Streams in the Yakima Indian Reservation, Washington, 1974 Water Year.
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File
Report 75-67.
Bureau of Reclamation. 19^6. Yakima River Erosion Surveys. Report submitted
to the U.S. Department of the Interior (November).
Bureau of Reclamation. 19^8. "Report on Proposed Drainage Outlet Plan,
Lower Yakima Valley, Yakima Project, Washington. Region 1, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho (January).
Bureau of Reclamation. 1958. Appendix B: Water. Yakima Project, Washing-
ton. Supplemental Storage Division Bumping Lake Enlargement.
126
-------
Bureau of Reclamation. 1959. Water Supply and Requirements Appendix:
Appendix B. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Kennewick Division Extension, Yakima (February).
Bureau of Reclamation. 1959. Appendix B: Water Supply. Yakima Project,
Washington, Supplemental Storage.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1971. Proposed Rehabilitation and Betterment Program
for the Cascade Irrigation District. Yakima Project, Washington
(revised, December).
Bureau of Reclamation (Regional Office) and Kittitas Reclamation District.
19^*8. Reclamation Accomplishment of the Kittitas Division of Yakima
Project, Washington. Prepared for Department of the Interior (July).
Burrows, Glenn R. and Lester C. Persson. 197^. Examination of Conditions
of Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. Report No. 18, Tieton Division,
Yakima Project, Washington. Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclam-
ation (July). Boise, Idaho.
Butcher, Walter, et_ aj_. 1971. Long-Run Costs and Policy Implications of
Adjusting to a Declining Water Supply in Eastern Washington. Pullman,
State of Washington Water Research Center Report No. 9 (October).
Celnicker, Arnold. 197**. "State Water Laws and Pollution Caused by Irriga-
tion Return Flow. Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Enforcement, National Field Investigations Center (September).
CH2M/HI11, Inc. 1973- Framework for the Plan of Study: Yakima River Basin.
Report prepared as Task I Report for State of Washington, Department of
Ecology (July).
CH2M/HI11, Inc. 1973- Water Quality Sampling Program: Yakima River,
Washington. Report conducted for the Department of Ecology, State of
Washington (August).
CH2M/HU1, Inc. 197^b. Municipal, Industrial and Domestic Wastewater
Elements. Draft Report submitted to the Department of Ecology, State of
Washington (March).
CH2M/HM1, Inc. 1974c. Plan of Study: Yakima River Basin. Prepared as the
Task Ml Report for the Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
Copp, Howard D. and David T. Higgins. 197^- Model Development and Systems
Analysis of the Yakima River Basin. State of Washington Research Center
Report No. 17B (November).
Department of Agriculture. 1972. Washington Agricultural Statistics: Fruit
Crops, 1971. Washington State.
Department of Agriculture. 1973- Washington Agricultural Statistics: Berry
Crops, 1972. Washington State (September).
127
-------
Department of Ecology. 1971. Water Quality Report: Yakima River Summer,
1970. State of Washington (August).
Department of Ecology. 1972. Comprehensive State Water Resources Program.
A Special Report to the Legislature, State of Washington (January).
Department of Ecology. 1973- Yakima River Basin Bibliography. Basin Bibli-
ography No. 3. State of Washington (January).
Department of Ecology. 1973. Washington Administrative Code (WC), Chapter
173-201 WAC: Water Quality Standards. State of Washington.
Department of Ecology. 1974. Yakima Basin Study: Land and Water Resources
of the Yakima—Kittitas RC&D Project Area. Draft No. 2 submitted to the
State of Washington (April).
Department of Ecology. 1975. Water Resources of Washington: A Biennial
Report to the Legislature. State of Washington (January).
Doerksen, Harvey R. and Greg Wakefield. 1975. Columbia Basin Compact Issues
Review. Completion Report for Project NR-1013. Pullman, Washington:
Pacific Northwest Region Commission (March).
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973- The Control of Pollution from Hydro-
graphic Modifications. EPA-430/9-73-015. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973- Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface
Excavations. EPA-430/9-73-012. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Identification and Control of Pollu-
tion from Salt Water Intrusion. EPA-430/9-73-013- Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods and Practices for Controlling
Water Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources. EPA-430/9-73-015.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods for Identifying and Evaluat-
ing the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants. EPA-430/9-
73-014. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Prqcesses, Procedures and Methods to
Control Pollution Resulting from all Construction Activity. EPA-43Q/9-
73-007. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Processes, Procedures and Methods to
Control Pollution Resulting from SiIvacultural Activities. EPA 430/9-
73-010. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
128
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Evaluation of Salinity Created by
Irrigation Return Flows. EPA 430/9-74-006. Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Faulkner, L. R. and W. J. Bolander. 1970. Agriculturally-Polluted Irrigation
Water as a Source of Plant-Parasitic Nematode Infestation. Journal of
Nema to logy, Volume 2, Number 4 (October), pp. 368-374.
Fox, John D. and David D. Wooldridge. 1974. Model Development and Systems
Analysis of the Yakima River Basin: Forest Hydrology Model. Report
No. 17E, State of Washington Water Research Center, Washington State
University-University of Washington (November).
Garvey, M. D., J. D. Morgan and K. L. Schubert. 1970. Part B: An Analysis
of the Law Governing Six Selected Washington Water-Oriented Special
Districts. Report No. 4, State of Washington Water Research Center
(June).
Geppert, Rollie. 1973. Yakima Basin Study: The Forested Lands of the Yakima
Basin--Interim Report. Report submitted to the State Water Program,
State of Washington (October).
Hastay, Mi Hard, e_t aj_. 1971. Part A: The Columbia River as a Resource:
Socioeconomic Considerations of Diversions and the Value of Columbia
River Water. State of Washington Water Research Center Report No. 5
(June).
Hertz, Ruth, et a_L (editors). 1973. Directory of Public Agencies and
Private Groups Interested in the Water Resources of Washington.
Report No. 15, State of Washington Water Research Center (June).
Institute for Environmental Studies. 1974. Proceedings from Conference on
Growth and the Quality of Life in Washington State: June 21-22, 1974.
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Jabubek, Otto F. 1970. Preliminary Economic Study: Kittitas County, Wash-
ington. Ellensburg, Washington: Resource Planning Center, Central
Washington State College (January).
Jamieson, James, e± a_l_. 1974. Some Political and Economic Aspects of Manag-
ing California Water Districts #190. Los Angeles: Institute of Govern-
ment and Public Affairs, U.S.L.A.
Mar, Brian W. and Walter R. Butcher. 1974. Model Development and Systems
Analysis of the Yakima River Basin: Macro Model Simulation. Report
No. 17A, State of Washington Water Research Center (November).
McGaughy, Dennis M. and Richard K. Cunningham. 1973. Yakima River Water
Quality Report: December 1970-September 1971- State of Washington,
Department of Ecology (May).
129
-------
Milhous, Robert T. 1975- Water Resources Analysis and Information Section:
Study Needs in the Yakima Basin. Office Report No. 7 submitted to State
of Washington Department of Ecology (March).
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1971. Appendix VII. Flood
Control (June), pp. 111-131.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1971. Appendix IX. Irrigation
(February), pp. 99-121.
Roza Division. 1961. Transfer of Irrigation Facilities to Roza Irrigation
District for Operation and Maintenance. Yakima Project, Washington
(January).
Seth, A. K., et aj_. 1968. Nematode Removal by Rapid Sand Filtration.
Journal oT the AWWA, Volume 60, No. 8, pp. 962-968.
Soil Conservation Service. (No date). Irrigation Guide 197*»: Benton,
Kittitas, Walla Walla, and Yakima Counties. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Yakima, Washington.
Stansbury, M. and R. T. Milhous. 1975. Water Quality Aspects of Irrigation
Drainage in the Yakima Valley, Washington. Proceedings of the ASCE
Irrigation and Drainage Specialty Conference, Logan, Utah (August 13~15)«
Starr, Warren A., e£ aj_. 1971. Study A: Potential Rate of Development of
Irrigation in Eastern Washington. Report No. 3A, State of Washington
Water Research Center (December).
State Water Program. 1973. State Water Program First Biennial Report, 1971-
1973. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology
(January).
State Water Program. 197^- Analysis of Alternatives for Flood Damage Reduc-
tion In the Yakima River-Union Gap to Yakima Reach. Department of
Ecology, State of Washington (May), Addendum-June 20, 197^.
. 1971. Sulphur Burner Conditions Irrigation Water. Farm Journal
(August or September).
Sylvester, Robert 0. and Robert W. Seabloom. 1963. A Study on the Character
and Significance of Irrigation Return Flows in the Yakima River Basin.
Pullman, Washington: University of Washington Press (February, 1962
first editioh--second edition revised May, 1963).
Thompson, Gene T. 197^». Model Development and Systems Analysis of the
Yakima River Basin: Irrigated Agriculture Water Use. State of
Washington Water Research Center Report No. 17C (September).
URS/HM1, Ingman, Chase & Co. 197^. Inventory and Reconnaissance of Irri-
gation Districts in-the State of Washington. Part I—Summary Report
submitted to the Department of Ecology, Washington State.
130
-------
URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co. 1974. Inventory and Reconnaissance of Irri-
gation Districts in the State of Washington: Part I i—Detailed Data
by Districts. Prepared for State of Washington Department of Ecology
(August).
U.S. Congress. 1972. Public Law 92-500, 92nd Congress S. 2770 (October 18).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (No date). 1975 ACP Handbook: Yakima
County. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Union
Gap, Washington.
U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculure. (No date). Inventory of
Yakima River Basin—Washington Diversions and Return Flows, 1973-1974.
Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1975. Water Resources of the Toppenish Creek Basin,
Yakima Indian Reservation, Washington. Water Resources Investigation
42-74, prepared in cooperation with the Yakima Tribal Council (January).
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1969. Irrigation Water Require-
ments Estimates for Washington. Station Circular 512 (November),
College of Agriculture, Washington State University.
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1970. Irrigation System Design
Capacity Functions for Washington. Circular 525 (October). Washington
State University.
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1971. Salt Balance for the
Wapato Project for 1970-71 Compared with the Salt Balance for 1941-42.
Bulletin 743 (November), Washington State University.
Washington Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. (No date). Washington
Agricultural Statistics: Annual Crop Report 1972. Prepared for
Department of Agriculture, Washington State and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
Washington Crop and Livestopk Reporting Service. (No date). Washington
Agricultural Statistics, 1973- Seattle, Washington.
Washington Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. (No date). Washington
Agriculture: Preliminary Statistics 1974. Seattle, Washington.
Washington State University. (No date). 1975 Programs. Irrigated Agricul-
ture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, Washington.
Water. Research Center. 1970. Commentary on Improving the Flood-Associated
Activities of the State of Washington Department of Water Resources:
A Summary. Report No. 4. The State of Washington. Pullman (June).
Water Research Center. 1970. A Water Planning Concept for the State of
Washington. Report No. 6, The State of Washington (September).
131
-------
Water Research Center. (No date). Washington State's Water: A 1975 Report.
Water Resources Information System. 1973. A Selected Annotated Bibliography
on Water Resources of the State of Washington. WRIS Information Bulletin
No. 7- Olympia, Washington: State of Washington.
Water Resources Information System. 1973. A Selected Annotated Bibliography
on Columbia and Snake Rivers. WRIS Information Bulletin No. 6. State
of Washington.
Water Resources Information System. 197^. Status Summary of Potential
Projects in the Yakima Basin. Project Summary No. 1 (December).
Water Resources Info-rmation System. 1975- Current Water Related Studies in
the Yakima River Basin. (Draft), Information Bulletin Number 19, State
of Washington (April).
Water Resources Information System. 1975. Agricultural Return Flow Manage-
ment in the State of Washington: A Case Study of the Yakima Basin.
Technical Bulletin No. 8, Department of Ecology, State of Washington
(April).
Watts, F. J., C. E. Brockway and A. E. Oliver. 197^. Analysis and Design
of Settling Basins for Irrigation Return Flow. Research Technical
Completion Report. Water Resources Research Institute, University of
Idaho (September).
Whittlesey, Norman K. and Walter R. Butcher. (No date). Irrigation Develop-
ment Potential in Washington. College of Agriculture, Research Center
Circular 579, Washington State University.
Whitworth, Jan and Carolyn Symons (editors). 197*». Directory of Public
Agencies and Private Groups Interested in the Water Resources of
Washington. WRIS Information Bulletin No. 17 (December).
. (1956). Yakima Project, Washington: Roza and Sunnyside Divisions
Report on Outlet Drain Channels. Draft (April).
Yakima River Basin Citizens' Committee. 1975. Policy Statements (March).
Yandon, K. E. and G. L. Wilfert. 1969. Final Report on Evaluation of Yakima
County's Economic Growth Prospects to 1980. Submitted to Yakima
Conference on Governments, Yakima, Washington (June 2).
132
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1: SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS—YAKIMA VALLEY: GENERAL POPULATION
County
Median Years
of School
M F
Unemployment
Rate (%)
M F
Occupation:
Farmers & Farm
Managers (%)
Median
Income
Per Capita
Income of
Persons
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
12.5
11.6
12.5
12.4
12.1
12.5
10.1
7-6
6.1
10.0
11.8
8.0
5.0
5.8
2.1
$8524
$8062
$10,656
$2683
$2553
$3204
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population (.1970).
TABLE A2: SOCIAL CHARACTER 1ST ICS--YAKIMA VALLEY: RURAL NONFARM POPULATION
County
Median Years
of School
Industry of
the Employed:
Agricultural ,
Forestry 6
Fisheries (%)
Occupation:
Farmers & Farm
Managers (%)
M F
Median
Income
Per Capita
Income
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
12.1
11.7
12.3
10.9
19-2
18.8
2.7
4.3
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.9
$7992
$8210
$10092
$8764
$2512
$2404
$2794
$2570
SOURCE: U.S. Centus of Population (1970).
133
-------
TABLE A3: SOCIAL CHARACTER ISTI CS—YAK I MA VALLEY: RURAL FARM POPULATION
County
Median Years
of School
Industry of
the Employed:
Agricultural ,
Forestry &
Fisheries (%)
Occupation:
Farmers & Farm
Managers (%)
M F
Kittitas 12. 4 46.9 43-2 9.1
Yaklma 12.1 48.0 38.9 6.9
Benton 12.2 43-7 33-9 1.9
Median
1 ncome
Per Capita
1 ncome
$8873 $3023
$8182 $2584
$9216 $2922
$8757 $2893
SOURCE:U.S. Census of Population (1970).
134
-------
TABLE A4; POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS--YAKIMA VALLEY: 1960 and 1970
County
Total
1970
URBAN
Total
9
'0
Urban
Urbanized
Areas
Other
Urban
RURAL
Total
Places
1000-2500
Other
Rural
1960
Total
Total
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
v*> Klttitas 25,039 13,568 54.2
Yakima 144,971 74,172 51.2
Benton 67,540 44,456 65.8
TOTAL 127,550 132,196
13,568 11,471 2,756
74,172 70,799 7,889
44,456 23,084 2,177
105,354
8,715 20,467 8,625 11,842
62,910 145,112 74,250 70,862
20,907 62,070 40,555 21,515
227,649
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population (1970).
-------
TABLE A5: URBAN AREAS IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY
Urban Areas
Yakima
Richland
Kennewi ck
Pasco
El lensburg
Sunnysi de
Toppenish
Grandview
Selah
Prosser
Wapato
Population
1970
45,588
26,290
15,212
13,920
13,568
6,751
5,744
3,605
3,070
2,954
2,841
Population
1960
43,284
23,548
14,244
14,522
8,625
6,208
5,667
3,366
2,824
2,763
3,137
% Change
5-3
11.6
6.8
-4.1
57.3
8_
.7
•t f
1.4
7.1
8.7
6.9
-9.4
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population (1970).
TABLE A6: TOWNS IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY WITH A POPULATION 1000 to 2500
Town
Union Gap
Cle El urn
Granger
Villah
W. Richland
Benton City
Ros lyn
Population
1970
2,040
1,725
1,567
1,138
1,107
1,070
1,031
Populat ion
1960
2,100
1,816
1,424
1,059
1,347
1,210
1,283
% Change
- 2.9
- 5-0
10.0
7.5
-17.8
-11.6
-19.6
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population (1970).
136
-------
TABLE A7: POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY: 1960-1970
County
Kittitas
Yakima
Ben ton
Population
1970
25,039
144,971
67,540
Population
I960
20,467
145,112
62,070
% Change
22.3
- 0.1
8.8
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population (1970).
TABLE A8: PERCENT OF THE RURAL POPULATION TO THE TOTAL POPULATION
IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY: 1960 and 1970
County
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
% Rural Nonfarm
1970 I I960
34.8 45.7
35.8 30.9
28.8 28.0
% Rural
1970 1
10.9
13-0
5.4
Farm
1960
12.2
17-9
6.7
Chanae
-10.6
-27.3
-19-4
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Agriculture (1969).
TABLE A9: TYPES OF FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY
County
Type of Farm Organization
l
1 ndependent or
Family (%)
Partnership
(*)
Corporation
(shareholders)
< 10
1 10
Total
Of
o
FARMS
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
ACREAGE
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
415 (87-7)
2,946 (86.8)
594 (85.3)
108,176 (39.
498,025 (59-
392,471 (51.
7)
9)
5)
3
— — — r
150
129
207
46
24
62
,952
,374
,114
(9-7)
(9.5)
(8.9)
(33-
(15-
(27.
2)
6)
2)
122
194
157
10
95
34
,823
,044
,480
1
9
2
180
7,322
886
(2.
(3-
(5-
(27.
(24.
(20.
3)
1)
2)
1)
2)
8)
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Agriculture (1969).
137
-------
TABLE AID. TENURE OF FARM OPERATORS IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY
County
Type of Tenure
Full Owners
All Farms
(*)
Class 1-5
(*>
Part Owners
All Farms
(*)
Class 1-5
(*)
Tenants
All Farms
(*)
Class 1-5
ft)
FARMS
KTttTtas
Yakima
Benton
ACREAGE
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
493
3,661
84?
81,427
1,126,508
93.518
(73.1)
(75.6)
(73.7)
(15.1)
(62.4)
(12.0)
323
2,383
445
72,256
161,042
79,609
(68.3)
(70.2)
(63.9)
(15-9)'
(19.4)
(10.5)
136
839
220
309-751
594,182
546,695
(20.2)
(17.3)
(19.1)
(57.5)
(32.9)
(70.3)
119
766
184
258,710
588,879
545,635
(25.2)
(22.6)
(26.4)
(56.9)
(70,9)
(71.6)
45
345
82
147,594
83,223
137,081
(6.7)
(7.D
(7.D
(27.4)
(4.6)
(17.6)
31 (6.6)
246 (7.2)
67 (9.6)
123,166 (27.1)
80,805 (9.7)
136,490 (17.9)
KEY: Class 1-5 farms are those farms with sales of $2,500 or more.
TABLE All. ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY
County
ACRES
1-9
10-49
50-69
70-99
100-129
140-179
180-219
220-259
260-499
500-999
1000-1999
2000
TOTAL ACRES, FARMS WITH
IRRIGATED LAND
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
177
3,177
651
2,482
50,798
8,760
1,271
19,570
3,032
4,906
26,538
6,632
4,626
23,187
6,829
10,320
27,005
7,076
6,034
19,126
4,890
8,798
17,579
4,236
26,184
59,316
11,598
22,082 20,711
55,118 46,717
17,531
313,087
319,548
FARMS WITH ACRES OF
IRRIGATED LAND
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
108 2,036
2,789 41,003
574 6,726
903
15,801
2,095
4,128
20,117
5,142
3,344
16,724
4,874
8,726
19,252
4,709
4,598.
13,622
3,221
5,748
11,973
.2,363
17.Q98
43,858
9,074
14,344
36,826
10,399
5,867
22,991
13,909
20,120
NUMBER OF FARMS WITH
IRRIGATED LAND
Kittitas
Yakima
Benton
20
551
115
102
2,113
379
22
336
52
60
325
81
39
199
57
65
171
45
30
97
25
37
74
18
76
172
33
32
81
25
15
36
2
24
33
13
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Agriculture (1969).
1 acre = 0.4047 hectares.
138
-------
TABLE A12. NUMBER OF FARM UNITS PER ECONOMIC CLASS IN THE YAKIMA VALLEY
ECONOMIC CLASSES
County
Kittltas
Yak! ma
Benton
Total
16
76
21
62
639
146
<«6
420
76
47
318
63
64
432
83'
34
299
61
84
382
75
40 '
224
44
26
224
43
17
"3
23
37
268
61
15
167
48
155
1,085
353
28
196
51
3
2
1
674
4,845
1,149
6,668
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Agriculture (1969).
139
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-?8-17^b
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume II: Yakima Valley Case Study
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Paul C. Huszar, George E. Radosevich, Gaylord V.
Skogerboe, Warren L. Trock, and Evan C. Vlachos
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.
R-803572
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.- Ada, OK
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
Vo I ume
VoIume
VoIume
I: Methodology, EPA-600/2-78-l7^a
III: Middle Rip Grande Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-l74c
IV: Grand Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-1
16. ABSTRACT
The goal of this research project has beep to develop an effective process for
implementing technical and institutional solutions to the problem of irrigation returr
flow pollution. This report contains the findings of a case study of the Yakima
Valley, Washington. The findings are reported according to the proposed process,
namely: a) defining the problem in terms of its physical, legal, economic, and
social parameters; b) identifying potential solutions in relation to the key para-
meters of the problem; c) assessing the. range of potential solutions for the specific
area of concern; and d) specifying those solutions or groups of solutions which are
most effective in reducing pollution and are implementable.
The basic conclusions of the report are that: a) irrigation methods used in
many parts of the Valley are inappropriate to the topography and soils, thus causing
return flow pollution; b) neither state nor federal water quality regulations have
had a significant impact on the, pol lutiop problem;
------- |