SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Roberts Kerr Environmental Research EPA-€00/2-78-174-i
Laboratory Auciust 1978
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors
in Irrigation Return
Flow Quality Control
Volume IV
Grand 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^d
August 1978
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
IN IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume IV: Grand Valley Case Study
by
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Paul C. Huszar
George E. Radosevlch
Warren L. Trock
Evan C. Vlachos
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Grant No. R-803572
Project Officer
James P. Law, Jr.
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 7^20
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 7^20
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessar-
ily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
i i
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality
of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of
the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: a) investigate
the nature, transport, fate, and management of pollutants in ground water;
b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with soil and
other natural systems; c) develop and demonstrate pollution control technol~
ogies for irrigation return flows; d) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for animal production wastes; e) develop and demonstrate
technologies to prevent, control, or abate pollution from the petroleum
refining and petrochemical industries; and f) develop and demonstrate tech-
nologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations of industrial waste-
waters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA is to
meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and enforce
pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and pro-
vide adequate protection for the American public.
(hSL-
.yv*-1"^-
n
Wi11iam C. Galegar v
Di rector
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
i i i
-------
PREFACE
This report concentrates ori the presentation of a process for imple-
menting technical and institutional solutions to the problem of return flow
pollution. This process, under the general title of "Socio-Economic and
Institutional Factors in Irrigation Return Flow Quality Control," was
centered around a methodological and pragmatic definition of the problem
and identification and assessment of a wide range of potential solutions
for diverse situations. Four separate, but interrelated, volumes summa-
rize 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 Grand Valley was used as a case study area for developing an
effective process for implementing technical and institutional solutions to
the problem of pollution from irrigation return flows. This area is the
most significant agricultural salt source in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. The primary source of salinity is from the extremely saline aquifers
overlying the marine deposited Mancos Shale formation. Subsurface irrigation
return flows resulting from conveyance seepage losses and overirrigation of
croplands dissolve salts from this formation before returning to the
Colorado River. The most cost-effective technologies for reducing the salt
load are a combination of lateral lining and on-farm improvements. Farmer
participation in such a program is very important. Implementation will
result in excess water being available for selling, renting, or leasing
to water users upstream from Grand Valley.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-803572 by
Colorado State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Enviornmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period between February Ik, 1975,
to November 14, 1977, and work was completed as of May k, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iff
Preface . . ; iv
Abstract v
Figures vjjj
Tables jx
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
Description of the Area 1
Development of Irrigation 3
The Water Quality Problem k
Organization of the Report 7
2. Conclusions 10
3. Recommendations 12
4. Characteristics of the Study Area 13
Physical Characteristics 13
Economic Characteristics 22
Social Characteristics 26
Legal Characteristics 32
Summary 60
5. Nature of the Problem 61
Water Quality Standards 61
Existing Water Quality 62
Sources of Water Quality Degradation 69
Future Water Quality Considerations 70
6. Causes of the Problem 72
Physical Causes 72
Economic Causes 73
Legal Causes 78
Social Causes 79
7. Identification of Potential Solutions 81
Physical Solutions 81
Economic Solutions 83
Legal Solutions 85
Social Solutions 86
Combinations of Solutions 87
8. Assessment of Potential Solutions 89
Evaluation by Research Team 89
Field Assessment of Potential Solutions 123
Summary of Results 127
References. . 129
Appendix A 133
Appendix B 139
vfi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 The Grand Valley, Colorado 2
2 The Colorado River Basin 5
3 Relative magnitude of salt sources in the
Colorado River Basin 6
4 Relative magnitude of agricultural salt sources
in the Colorado River Basin 8
5 General geologic cross-section of the Grand Valley 14
6 Conceptualized cross-section of the
demonstration area geologic profile 16
7 Normal precipitation and temperature at
Grand Junction, Colorado 19
8 Grand Valley canal distribution system 21
9 Organizational representation of salinity
program in Grand Valley 30
10 Application of adjudication Procedures
for Water Rights in Colorado 37
11 Agricultural land use in the Grand Valley 64
12 Present irrigation/pollution relation 74
13 Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market 76
14 Costs of production of agricultural crops, with and
without internalization of pollution costs 77
15 Optimal on-farm water management strategies
in the Grand Valley 98
16 Minimum cost canal and ditch lining strategy for
the Grand Valley 100
17 Minimum cost salinity control strategy in the Grand Valley . . . .101
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Land Use in Demonstration Area During 1969 17
2 Value of Crops' Production, Mesa County, 1973 22
3 Uses of Land in Grand Valley, Colorado, 1973 24
4 Use of Irrigated Land for Crops, Grand Valley,
Colorado, 1969 and 1973 25
5 Crop Production Costs and Returns, Grand Valley,
Colorado, 1973 27
6 Agricultural Land Use in the Grand Valley 65
7 Grand Valley Water Budget for 1968 Water Year 66
8 Grand Valley Distribution of Canal Flows in 1968 67
9 Salt Budget for Grand Valley During 1968 68
10 Community Income Reduction Under Two Options
for Retiring Irrigated Land in the Grand Valley
Trade Area 105
11 Summary of Annual Regional Costs and Cost
Effectiveness: Upper and Lower Bound Estimates for the
the Two Land Retirement Options 107
12 Summary Data Table for Taxing Alternatives 109
13 Summary of Salinity Tax Distribution Percentages
for Various Taxing Alternatives 112
14 Summary of Technological and Institutional
Alternatives for Salinity Control in Grand Valley 125
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 Safaey, 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 hgs been the development of
an effective process for implementing technical and institutional solutions
to the problem of irrigation return flow pollution. This report, based on a
case study analysis of the Grand Valley in western Colorado, contains specific
findings utilizing the proposed process, namely: a) definition of the prob-
lem in its physical, legal, economic, and social parameters; b) identification
of potential solutions in relation to key elements of the problem; c) assess-
ment of the potential solutions for significance and acceptability; and
d) specification of those solutions which hold greatest promise of efficiency
and implementabi1ity.
The approach and emphasis of the overall project, and of case studies
as well, has been the specification of a process by which appropriate solu-
tions to return flow problems are identified, evaluated and recommended for
adoption. This has involved determination of technical and institutional
solutions relevant to the return flow problems, but the solutions have not
been the principle purpose of the research effort. This particular case
study has the benefit of many years of field research by Colorado State
University (CSU), which has been funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). In addition, other state and Federal agencies have been
conducting research on the saline irrigation return flows from Grand Valley,
all of which provides valuable insight regarding appropriate solutions.
It should be pointed out that each case study, although autonomous,
should be related to the main report so that specific findings can be inter-
preted in the context of the more general principles and concepts which are
involved In the process of implementation.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
The Grand Valley is located in west central Colorado at the confluence
of the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers in Mesa County (Figure 1). Paralleling
the Colorado River for about 30 miles (48.3 km), the Valley averages seven
miles (11.3 km) in width and about 4,400 feet (1,3^0 meters) in elevation.
Summer weather is characteristically hot and dry and the winters cold.
Beginning in April, the normal frost-free season averages about 190 days.
With annual precipitation averaging slightly more than 8 inches (200 mm),
irrigation is necessary to maintain a viable commercial agriculture in the
Valley.
-------
! --
I
/
Nv^V
-N
X^
V.
.Mack
!
-Grand Valley
^
COLORADO
Boundary of Irrigated
Area
Gunnison
River
Figure 1. The Grand Valley, Colorado.
-------
Grand Junction, with a population of about 25,000, is the principal
commercial center in the Valley, and in Colorado's western slope. Agriculture
is an important source of employment and income to a local population of near-
ly 60,000 people in Mesa County. However, in recent years basic manufacturing
and service industries have become the mainstay for an otherwise traditional
agricultural community (Leathers and Young, 1976). Approximately 56,000
acres (22,680 hectares) of land are presently cultivated out of a total area
exceeding 100,000 acres (40,500 hectares). Urban and industrial expansion,
service roads and farmsteads, and idle and abandoned lands account for most
of the balance not farmed (Walker and Skogerboe, 1971).
The diversified agricultural industry in the Valley is comprised of both
livestock and crop production activities. Major crops grown include corn,
alfalfa, sugar beets, small grains, and permanent pasture. Slightly less
than ten percent of the irrigated acreage is planted to pome and deciduous
orchards. Small acreages of vegetables and other specialty crops such as turf
grass are also grown in the area. The Grand Valley has long been favored
wintering area for cattle and sheep grazed on high summer ranges to the east
and south (Leathers and Young, 1976).
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION
Although numerous hieroglyphics and abandoned ruins testify to occupation
of the Colorado River Basin long before settlement began, the first people
encountered in the Grand Valley were the Ute Indians. The first contact these
people had with white men was recorded in 1776 when an expedition led by
Fathers Dominquez and Escalante passed north of what was later to be Grand
Junction and across the Grand Mesa (Hafen, 1927). The region was subsequently
visited by fur trappers, traders and explorers. In 1839» one such trader
named Joseph Roudeau built a trading post just upstream from the present site
of Grand Junction.
In 1853, Captain John W. Gunnison led an exploration party into the Grand
Valley from up the Gunnison River Valley in search of a feasible transconti-
nental railroad route (Beckwith, 185*0. As Captain Gunnison and his party
traversed the confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, an error was
made by the expedition recorder as to the proper naming of the river.
Beckwith referred to the Gunnispn River as the Grand River and the Colorado
River as the Blue River, or "nah-un-Kah-rea," as it was known to the Indians.
The mistake was later corrected, however, since the Colorado River was known
as the Grand River as early as 1842 (Fremont, 1845). Field surveys conducted
by Hayden (Hayden, 1877) in 1875 and 1876 found only the Ute Indians in the
Valley, and skirmishes with some of the hostile Utes cut short the 1875
expedition. As a result of the Meeker Massacre of 1879, the Utes were forced
to accept a treaty moving them out of Colorado and onto reservations in east-
ern Utah. After the completion of the Utes' exit in September 1881, the
Valley was immediately opened up for settlement for the first ranch staked
out on September 7, 1881, near Roudeaus' trading post. Later that year, on
September 26, George A. Crawford founded Grand Junction as a towns!te and
formed the Grand Junction Town Company, October 10, 1881. On November 21,
1882, the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad narrow-gauge line was completed to
-------
Grand Junction via the Gunnison River Valley and thus assured the success of
the settlement.
Following settlement in the early l880's, irrigation companies were
organized to divert water for agricultural use. Many of the original compan-
ies have been consolidated, leaving five which presently supply all the water
diverted under original decrees: the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (1882);
the Grand Valley Water Users Association, using water developed by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation in 1916; the Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Dis-
tricts (iSSO's); and the Redlands Water and Power Company (Skogerboe and
Walker, 1972). Because irrigable acreages were typically overestimated within
the newly-formed irrigation districts, and due partially to a gradual decline
in irrigated acreage as a result of waterlogging and more recently urbaniza-
tion, Grand Valley farmers have always had an abundant supply of water.
THE WATER QUALITY PROBLEM
Salinity is the most pressing problem facing the future development of
water resources in the Colorado River Basin (Figure 2). Because of the pro-
gressive deterioration in mineral quality towards the lower reaches, the
detrimental effects of using an increasingly degraded water are first seen
in the Lower Basin. As a result of the continual development in the Upper
Basin, most of which will be diversion out of the Basin to meet large muni-
cipal and industrial needs, water ordinarily available to dilute the salt
flows will be depleted from the system, causing significant increases in
salinity concentrations throughout the Basin. The economic penalty result-
ing from a use of lower qua 1 i ty~ water will be incurred by those users in the
lower system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971) has estimated that present economic losses from
salinity, due to loss of agricultural productivity and added costs of water
treatment and conditioning in urban areas, are $16 million annually. If
water resources development proceeds as proposed without implementing a
salinity control program, the average annual economic detriments (1970
dollars) would increase to $28 million in 1980 and $51 million in 2010 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971). These damages do not reflect costs
to Mexico.
A more detailed examination of the basinwide problems is summarized in
Figure 3, which clearly demonstrates the necessity of attacking salinity
basinwide. As indicated, the bulk of the salt loads passing into the lower
reaches is attributable to the Upper Basin. Salinity management in the Upper
Basin must, therefore, concern itself with the aspect of salt loading in the
river system from municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural sources.
The other aspect, which is the salt concentrating effects, is related to con-
sumptive use, evaporation and transbasin diversions. Although several
methods of controlling salinity—such as phreatophyte eradication (although
controversial from a wildlife standpoint) and evaporation suppression on
reservoirs--are desirable, the most feasible solutions are in reducing in-
flows from mineralized springs and more efficient irrigation practices. In
any case, the salinity management objectives in the Upper Basin must neces-
sarily be concerned with a reduction in the total salt load being carried to
-------
Figure 2. The Colorado River Basin.
-------
UPPER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN
AVERAGE SALT LOAD TONS/DAY
June 1965 - May 1966
NATURAL POINT SOURCES
AND WELLS
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
37%
(9645 T/d )
9%
(2430 T/d)
MUNICIPAL
AND
INDUSTRIAL
NET RUNOFF
52%
(13728 T/d)
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN
AVERAGE SALT LOAD TONS/DAY
November 1963 - October 1964
NET RUNOFF
MUNICIPAL
AND
INDUSTRIAL
-------
the Lower Basin in order that the detrimental salinity effects anticipated
from further development can be limited. Salinity control must be practiced
at all locations in the Basin if the economic losses to downstream users are
to be minimized.
Since the Colorado River Basin is not a rapidly growing municipal and
industrial area, the population problems are primarily associated with agricul-
ture, as illustrated in Figure 3- Thus, the major aspect of reducing the salt
inputs 5n the Upper Basin must be the effective utilization of the water pre-
sently diverted for irrigation by comprehensive programs of conveyance channel
lining, increasing irrigation efficiency on the farms, improved irrigation
company management practices, and more effective coordination of problem
areas. Salinity is no longer a local problem and should be considered
regionally.
In irrigated areas, it is necessary to maintain an acceptable salt bal-
ance in the crop root zone which requires some water for leaching. However,
when irrigation efficiency is low and conveyance seepage losses are high, the
additional deep percolation losses are subject to the highly saline aquifers
and soils common in the basin and result in large quantities of salt being
picked up and carried back to the river system. Therefore, a need exists to
delineate the high input areas and examine the management alternatives avail-
able to establish the most effective salinity control program.
Probably the most significant salt source in the Upper Basin is the Grand
Valley area (Figure 1) in west central Colorado. The Colorado River enters
the Grand Valley from the east, is joined by the Gunnison River at Grand
Junction, Colorado, and then exits to the west. The contribution to the total
salt flows in the Basin from this area, illustrated in Figure A, is highly
significant. The primary source of salinity is from the extremely saline
aquifers overlying the marine deposited Mancos shale formation. The shale is
characterized by lenses of salt in the formation which are dissolved by water
from excessive irrigation and conveyance seepage losses when it comes in con-
tact with the Mancos shale formation. The introduction of water through these
surface sources percolates into the shallow ground water reservoir, where the
hydraulic gradients it produces displace some water into the river. This dis-
placed water has usually had sufficient time to reach chemical equilibrium
with the salt concentrations of the soils and shale. These factors also make
the Grand Valley an important study area, since the conditions encountered in
the Valley are common to many locations in the Basin.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to identify the specific causes of the
water quality problems in the study area, to identify alternative solutions
to these problems, to analyze these alternatives, and finally, to suggest the
means for implementing solutions to the problems.
In order to insure the most complete discussion possible for the various
aspects affecting the water quality situation in the Grand Valley, the
-------
UPPER MAIN STEM
SUBBASIN
DUCHESNE RIVER
BASIN
3%
GUNNISON RIVER
PRICE RIVER
5 %
L.YMAN
AREA
4%
OTHER AREAS
GREEN RIVER
SUBBASIN
LOWER MAIN STEM
SUBBASIN -
SAN JUAN RIVER
SUBBASIN
Figure k. Relative magnitude of agricultural salt sources in the Colorado
River Basin (from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971).
-------
characteristics of the study area, causes of the water quality problems
and identification of potential solutions are described according to their
physical, economic, legal, and social dimensions.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The salt load contribution from Grand Valley is largely the result of
saline subsurface irrigation return flows reaching the Colorado River. The
alluvial soils of Grand Valley are high in natural salts; however, the most
significant salt source is the Mancos shale formation underlying these allu-
vial soils which contain crystalline lenses of salt that are readily dissolved
by the subsurface return flows.
Added to this geologic setting is an irrigation water supply which aver-
ages at least three times greater than the crop water requirements. Although
much of this excess water returns to open drains as surface runoff, which has
negligible impact upon the salinity in the Colorado River, there are still
significant quantities of water that reach the underlying Mancos shale form-
ation. These subsurface return flows are the result of seepage losses from
canals and laterals, and excessive deep percolation losses from overirrigation
of the croplands.
The excessive irrigation water supplies are the result of early develop-
ment in 1882 of irrigation systems in Grand Valley, which results in the Grand
Valley Irrigation Company having the first right (i.e., earliest priority) to
water on the Colorado River in the state of Colorado. The various irrigation
companies in Grand Valley have many early water rights. During extreme drought
years, only the Government Highline Canal has to reduce its diversions.
The irrigation companies generally terminate their responsibility to the
irrigators at the turnout gates along the canals which discharge water into the
laterals. Generally, the water users under each lateral are only informally
organized. Also, they lack flow measuring devices which greatly hinders their
ability to equitably distribute the waters. Thus, the combination of geologic
setting, early water rights that yield abundant irrigation water supplies,
lack of responsibility of irrigation companies to individual waters users, the
almost complete absence of flow measuring devices along the laterals, and the
low annual charges for irrigation water all contribute to the salinity
problem.
The most cost-effective technologies for reducing the salt load from
Grand Valley are a combination of lateral lining and on-farm improvements.
Farmer participation in such a program is very important. The construction
of physical facilities and the development of improved irrigation practices
requires considerable technical assistance in organizing the farmers under
each lateral into a water users association and to insure that improved
10
-------
water management practices are adopted by the farmers in order to realize the
potential of the constructed physical facilities.
The retirement of some croplands which are relatively unproductive should
be considered, since a salinity control program will lower presently existing
high water tables, waterlogged soils will be drained, and some of the now
unproductive cropland—which deteriorated decades ago because of poor water
management—may be returned to a much higher level of productivity. The
implementation of such a program will result in excess water being available
for rent or sale to water users upstream from Grand Valley. Sale of portions
of annual allotments will cause prices of water to rise beyond diversion and
distribution costs and will encourage more efficient use of water in agricul-
tural production. When applications of water to crops are reduced to levels
which approximate requirements for growth, return flows will be diminished
and the salinity problem reduced.
11
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
A salinity control program should be implemented which involves a com-
bination of lateral lining and on-farm improvements. This program should be
implemented on a lateral-by-lateral basis, where those personnel providing
technical assistance would meet with all of the water users under any partic-
ular lateral to develop a plan of improvement. In addition, technical assist-
ance personnel would assist the water users in becoming formally organized in
order to implement the plan and provide improved operation, maintenance and
management following construction.
The State Engineer's Office should develop standards and criteria for
beneficial use of irrigation water in Grand Valley. This will encourage or
require limitation of applications of water, to approximate the consumptive
use by crops. Deep percolation of excess water and saline return flows would
be correspondingly reduced.
To assist in local water management, farmers on the laterals should
organize into mini-companies to improve the delivery efficiencies and under-
take more than mere distribution of water as it is delivered to them.
State legislation is needed that would authorize the irrigation companies
in Grand Valley to rent or sell the 'excess water resulting from this salinity
control program to water users upstream from Grand Valley. The revenues from
such water transfers could be used to line the canals or to implement other
water management technologies.
12
-------
SECTION k
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Geology
The plateaus and mountains in the Colorado River Basin are the product of
a series of uplifted land masses deeply eroded by wind and water. However,
long before the earth movements which created the uplifted land masses, the
region was the scene of alternate encroachment and retreat of great inland
seas. The sedimentary rock formations underlying large portions of the Basin
are the result of material accumulated at the bottom of these seas. In areas
similar to the Grand Valley, the upper portions contain a large number of
intertonguing and overlapping formations of continental sandstone and marine
shales, as shown in Figure 5. The lower parts are mostly marine Mancos shale
and the Mesa Verdei group of related formations. This particular geology is
exhibited in about 23 percent of'the Basin in such common locations as the
Book Cliffs, Wasatch, Aquarias, and Kaiparowitz Plateaus, the cliffs around
Black Mesa, and large areas in the San Juan and Rocky Mountains.
The geology of an area has a profound influence on the occurrence, behav-
ior and chemical quality of the water resources. In the mountainous origins
of most water supplies, a continuous interaction of surface water and ground
water occurs when precipitation in the form of rain and melting snow enters
ground water reservoirs. Eventually, these quantities of ground water return
to the surface flows through springs, seeps, and adjacent soil in regions
downstream. A further consequence of such a flow system is the addition of
water from streams to the ground water storage during periods of high flows
and subsequent return flows during low flow periods. The resulting continu-
ous interaction of surface water and ground water allows contact with rocks
and soils of the region which affect the chemical characteristics imparted
to the water.
The interior valleys of the Basin (the Grand Valley is a good example)
do not receive large enough amounts .of precipitation to significantly recharge
the ground water storage. Usually, the water bearing aquifers are buried deep
below the Valley floor and are fed in and along the high precipitation areas
of the mountains. Shallow ground water supplies are predominantly the result
of irrigation. Although the water in the consolidated rock formations of the
Valley region does not contribute significantly to the stream flows as is the
case in higher elevations, it does have a pronounced effect on water quality
due to the large volumes of natural salts contained in these formations.
13
-------
UNCOMPAHGRE UPLIFT
CENOZOIC
TERTIARY
(EOCENE)
(BALEOCENE)^
MESOZOIC
(CRETACEOUS)
ARCHEZOIC
Figure 5. General geologic cross-section of the Grand Valley (from U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, 1955; Soil Surveys, Grand Junction Area, Colorado).
-------
High intensity thunderstorms bring surface runoff in contact with the rocks
and soils which then distribute their chemical characteristics. Erosion by
rivers and streams has deposited alluvium high in natural salts along certain
valleys, with these natural salts being returned to the surface waters when
moisture, from either precipitation or irrigation, percolates through the
alluvial soils.
Soils
The desert climate of the area has restricted the growth of natural vege-
tation, thereby causing the soils to be very low in nitrogen content because
of the absence of organic matter. The natural inorganic content is high in
calcite, gypsum and sodium, patassium, magnesium, and calcium salts. With the
addition of irrigation, some locations have experienced high salt concentra-
tions with a resulting decrease in crop productivity. Although natural phos-
phate exists in the soils, it becomes available too slowly for use by culti-
vated crops and a fertilizer application greatly aids yields. Other minor
elements such as iron are available except in those areas where drainage is
inadequate. The soils are of relatively recent origin as they contain no
definite concentration of lime or clay in the subsoil as could be expected in
weathered soils. The soils in the area were classified by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station
in 19^0 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and
Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955> Soil Surveys, Grand Junction
Area, Colorado, Series 19*»0, No. 19, November). Some areas in the Valley
have limited farming use because of poor internal drainage, which results in
waterlogging and salt accumulations.
Lying on top of the Mancos shale and below the alluvial soils is a large
cobble aquifer extending north from the river to about midway up the test
area, as illustrated in Figure 6. The importance of this aquifer with respect
to the drainage problems of the area has been demonstrated by a cooperative
study in 1951 between the Colorado Experiment Station in conjunction with the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colo-
rado Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957), which evaluated the feasibility
of pump drainage from the aquifer.
Land Use
Evaporation and transpiration from crops, phreatophytes and other land
use results in a loss of salt-free water to the atmosphere and deposition of
salt in the soil profile. The magnitude of these losses depends on the acre-
age (hectares) of each water use. As a part of a valleywide evaluation, the
various acreages of land uses were mapped. The acreages for each land use
are shown in Table 1 (Walker and Skogerboe, 1971). One of the most quoted
statements in the literature concerning the Grand Valley is that approximately
30 percent of the farmable area is unproductive because of the ineffectiveness
of the drainage in these areas. Examination of the results presented in Table
1 indicates that 70 percent of the study area can be classified as irrigable
land; however, only 52 percent can be considered productive. The use of the
term productive relates to the areas producing cash crops such as corn, beets,
grains, orchards, alfalfa, etc. The land use summary for the entire Valley
will be presented in a later section.
15
-------
Legend
Fine Gravel
[v-V•'.-..'.:i;:J Silty Clay Loam Soils
E?<=j?ff?i>1 Cobble Aquifer
Tight Clay (Discontinuous)
N-
o
U
0>
I
Ehnr^Hj Mancos Shale Bedrock
Orchard
Mesa
Scale I Mile
Harizontel Scale
Figure 6. Conceptualized cross-section of the demonstration area geologic profile.
-------
TABLE 1. LAND USE IN DEMONSTRATION AREA DURING 1969
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1971).
Class if ication
A1 Corn
A2 Sugar beets
A3 Potatoes
A? Barley
A8 Oats
A9 Wheat
A10 Alfalfa
A12 Cultivated grass and hay
A13 Pasture
A15 Native grass pasture
A16 Orchard
A17 Idle
A18 Other
SUBTOTAL
C1 Farmsteads
C2 Residential yards
C3 Urban
C4 Stockyards
SUBTOTAL
E4 Open water surfaces
SUBTOTAL
F1L Cottonwood (light)
F1H Cottonwood (heavy)
F2M Salt Cedar (medium)/
F2H Salt Cedar (heavy)
F3L Willows (light) •
F3H Willows (heavy)
F4L Rushes (light)
F4H Rushes (heavy,)
F5L Greasewood (light)
F5M Greasewood (medium)
F5H Greasewood (heavy)
SUBTOTAL
Precipitation only
SUBTOTAL
Acreage
487
1
8
255
Ik
9
545
141
476
387
349
559
6
258
61
85
8
70
3
3
15
253
7
63
1
9
67
104
162
255
Hectares
197.00
0.41
3.24
103.28
5.67
3-65
220.73
57-11
192.78
156.74
141.35
226.40
2.43
104.49
24.71
34.43
3.24
28.35
1.22
1.22
6.08
102.47
2.84
25-52
0.41
3.65
27.14
42.12
65.61
91.13
Total
Ac.
3237
412
70
687
225
4631
Total
Ha.
1310.99
166.86
28.35
278.24
i.
91.13
1875.56
Percent
69-9
8.9
1.5
14.8
4.9
100.0
17
-------
ClI mate
The mountain ranges In the Upper Colorado River Basin have much more
influence on the climate than does the latitude. The movement of air masses
is disturbed by the mountain ranges to the extent that the high elevations are
wet and cool, whereas the low plateaus and valleys are drier and subject to
wide temperature ranges. A common characteristic of the climate in the lower
altitudes is hot and dry summers and cold winters. Moist Pacific air masses
can move across the Basin, but dry polar air and moist tropical air rarely
continue all the way across the Basin. Movement of both types of air mass
is obstructed and deflected by the mountains so that their effects within the
Basin are weaker and.:more erratic than in most areas of the country.
Most of the precipitation to the Basin is provided from the Pacific Ocean
and the Gulf of Mexico whose shores are 600 (965-*tO km) and 1,000 miles
(1,609 km) from the center of the Basin, respectively. The air masses are
forced to high altitudes and lose much of their precipitation before entering
the Basin. During the period from October to April, Pacific moisture is pre-
dominant, but the late spring and summer months receive moisture from the
Gulf of Mexico.
The monthly distribution of precipitation and temperature for Grand
Junction is shown in Figure 7 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1968). The
climate in the area is marked by a wide seasonal range, but sudden or severe
weather changes are infrequent due mainly to the high ring of mountains
around the Valley. This protective topography results in a relatively low
annual precipitation of approximately eight inches. The usual occurrence of
precipitation during the growing season is in the form of light showers from
thunderstorms which develop over the western mountains. The nature of the
Valley location with typical valley breezes provides some spring and fall
frost protection resulting in an average growing season of 190 days from
April to October. Although temperatures have ranged to as high as 105°F
(Al°c), the usual summer temperatures range in the middle and low 90's (low
30'sc) in the daytime to the low 60's (l6°-21°c) at night. Relative humidity
is usually low during the growing season, which is common in all of the semi-
arid Colorado River Basin.
Irrigatlon
The system of irrigation most common to the area is surface flooding
either by borders or furrows. The study area itself is located in the narrow
eastern part of the Valley which has a relief of about 50 feet per mile (8.25
m/km) sloping south towards the river. As a result, care is taken to prevent
erosion in most cases by irrigation with small streams. Most farms in the
area are small and have short-run lengths, and the small irrigation stream
allows adequate application. The quantity of water delivered to the farmer is
plentiful so the usual practice is to allow self-regulated diversions. Al-
though the method of irrigation is quite similar throughout Grand Valley, there
is considerable contrast in land use. The lands at the upper end (eastern) of
the Valley are largely orchards, which is also the case for the Orchard Mesa
lands south of the Colorado River. In contrast to the demonstration area,
larger tracts of farm land are located in the western portions of the Valley,
18
-------
Grand Junction Colo.
Alt. 4843 ft. - 1476 meters
\ _
1
:•::;
O-:--:
_— _
c
o
\ft
o
a>
(O
o>
c
8. 29" Annual 210.57mm Annual -
........ ....... :•:::•:•: :•::•::: ... -
£:?• §x? 'iiS :ixi .-.•.. j::j: ^i? j:j|$ :j: :$$ !:•:•:-
:5x" :§:? i i:5: :•: ': t: •'• t- :?x'-i :•: :•:• • : • ::•:•:• :$
i 190 Frost Free Days ,
Apr.16 Oct. 23
30
20
10
0
E
E
c
o
a
"a.
^j
OJ
w
a.
<5 - 30
80-
52.5 °F Annual || :§:§: ll.4°CAnnual
||: ||j |i| ....... - 20
\ 60- II II II I! I o
* °
|
o
o
c
0
0)
s
•x:x:
20- II
•:•:•!•:•
o-ll
*Xv"*
J
»%*••«"«
ijijiiiji
•x*x*
:?:•:•:
jijx'*
•X'X-
F
»*»"•*•*•
x'-i-x
•i'i'iv
x?x
jijx'S
:X;X;
M
x:x::
Si*
:?:•:•:
x'i*x
ixi$i
:'x-x
A
:j:|:|:|:
•X-X;
%-Xv
I*X*X
:J:S
M*X\
M
:-X;X;
:?:¥:•
i-i-ijix
$x'v!
•x'x'r
J
io:*:
:|$x:-
g$g
:?:•':•:
ijgx
«**%*»*.
J
•x'x*
S?-:-
;X;X;
xjxi;
.•X'X
x*x\
A
ftx?
;>X;X
::::::::::
?:?S
:::-x'$
S
:x:x-:
>:?:5
.•X'X'
¥:;::':j:
$:•:•:•:
X*X\'
0
:::::::::
ivi*:
•:•:§:•
:••$•:•
:•':•:$:
-V.".*.
N
•*•*****
'S$:
§!?"
II
:?-x':
•:":X-
D
-10
-20
b> ^S
Month
Figure 7- Normal precipitation and temperature at Grand Junction,
Colorado (Skogerboe and Walker, 1972).
19
-------
with many of these lands having good soils which contribute to the production
of high yield crops.
Canals
Consideration of the water distribution system is an essential part of
most salinity control alternatives, which suggests that a broader perspective
of system improvement as a salinity control alternative is required. The
delivery system in the Valley is divided into the canal or ditch subsystem
and the lateral subsystem. The division between the two subsystems is based
on management responsibility. The canal companies and irrigation districts
divert the appropriated water directly from the river, transport the water
in the cana.1 subsystem, and control the delivery of water through the canal
turnout, but they generally assume little responsibility for the water below
this point. The canal and ditch subsystem can thus be defined as that part
of the delivery network which is controlled by irrigation authorities. The
lateral network, extending beyond the turnout from the canal or ditches, is
managed by cooperative agreements between the individual users served by the
turnout. The transfer of responsibility between the two entities should be
the equitable measurement and charge for the water at the turnout, but there
is little incentive to make this effort with the abundance of water. A not-
able exception are the turnouts comprising the Water Users Association under
the Government Highline Canal, where individual measurements are made and
recorded.
The canals and ditches in the Grand Valley, shown in Figure 8, are
operated and maintained by separate irrigation organizations. Discharge cap-
acities at the head of the canals range from above 700 cfs (20 cms) in the
Government Highline Canal to 30 cfs (1 cms) in the Stub Ditch and diminish
along the length of each canal or ditch. The lengths of the respective canal
systems are approximately 55 miles (89 km) for the Government Highline Canal,
12 miles (19 km) each for the Price, Stub and Redlands Ditches, 110 miles
(177 km) for the Grand Valley system, and 36 miles (58km) for the Orchard
Mesa Canals.
The management of the canals and ditches in the area varies between can-
als, as well as with changes in the water supply. For example, it was noted
earlier that during periods when river flows become small, restrictions are
placed on the diversion into the Government Highline Canal. This is possible
because the flows are measured and recorded at each individual turnout in that
system, and it is required since their water rights are junior to others. On
the other hand, in most instances, along the other canals measurements are not
made because little shortage is experienced. Another practice used extensively
in the region is the regulation of canal discharges at points in the system
by varying the amounts of spillage into the natural wasteways and washes.
Neither of these practices—inadequate flow measurement and canal spillage--
is conducive to salinity control.
20
-------
10123
i i i i i
Scale in Miles
1012345
Scale in Kilometers
Figure 8. Grand Valley canal distribution system.
-------
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Gen era 1 Compos i 11 on
Though the Grand Valley has long been a traditional agricultural commun-
ity, in recent years manufacturing and service industries have become signif-
icant. Ninety percent of the employed wrrk force is occupied in nonagricul-
tural business and manufacturing enterprises. There are 18 manufacturers with
20 or more employees, 135 wholesale trade establishments and more than 600
retail stores in the area.
But agriculture continues to be an important source of income and
employment to the 50 thousand people of the Valley. The diversified agricul-
tural industry includes both livestock and crop production activities, and
there are several important firms which supply feeds, seeds, fertilizers,
irrigation equipment, and machinery. In addition, there are warehousing,
processing and transporting industries that add value to the crops and live-
stock produced, making them available to wholesalers, retailers and consumers
at appropriate times and places.
Major crops of the Valley include corn, alfalfa, sugar beets, small
grains, and pasture. About 10 percent of the irrigated acreage is planted to
pome and deciduous fruit trees. The Valley is perhaps best known for its
fruits, some of which are shipped as far as the Atlantic seaboard. Only a '
few cattle are raised in the Valley, but it has long been a favorite winter-
ing area for livestock grazed on pastures in adjacent mountains during the
summer time. Table 2 shows the values of crops produced in Mesa County in
1973- The major portion of these crops were produced in the Valley.
TABLE 2. VALUE OF CROPS' PRODUCTION, MESA COUNTY, 1973
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973)
Crop Value
Al 1 wheat
Corn for grain
Corn for si lage
Ba r 1 ey
Dry beans
Sugar beets
Oats
Al 1 hay
Other crops*
$ 290,000
2,455,400
940,800
301,200
103,000
2,215,000
205,700
3,880,200
3,890,200
TOTAL ALL CROPS $13,363,300
* Includes rye, fruits and vegetables.
22
-------
Agricultural Production and Resource Use
A land use survey completed in 1973 found 122,000 acres (A9,AlO ha) of
land in the area serv.ed by irrigation companies and districts. Of this,
71,000 acres (28,755 ha) were considered to be irrigable and 57,500 acres
(23,288 ha) were devoted to crops which were harvested and pastured.
Walker and Skogerboe described land use in the Valley in a general way:
The distribution of cropland in the Grand Valley seems to have
been affected largely by the temperature variations within the
Valley. For example, in the eastern end of the Valley (where
the Valley is narrow), the crops are almost dominantly orchard.
In the center of the Valley, in the proximity of Grand Junction
or nearby, the land is primarily pasture and/or alfalfa. Fin-
ally, in the western end of the Valley due to the shorter grow-
ing season, deeper soils, and fairly good drainage, the land is
used almost exclusively for corn, alfalfa, and sugar beets as
money crops (Walker and Skogerboe, 1971).
A summary of land use is contained in Table 3- There is an account of
use of all the irrigable lands, 71,^05 acres (28,919 ha), and in addition
there are estimates of acreages employed for urban uses, occupied by
phreatophytes and maintained simply as part of the watershed.
Within the last decade, there have been some noticeable changes in the
use of irrigated lands for crops, e.g., in the cropping patterns. In partic-
ular, the acreages of orchard and truck crops and sugar beets have changed,
declining moderately but constantly each year. The cropping pattern for 1973
is reflected in Table k. Also shown are crop acreages in 1969-
Role of Irrigation
Facilities for diversion of water for irrigating in the Grand Valley were
first developed by irrigation companies in the late 1870's and the 1880's.
There was a tendency for overestimation of acreages within the territories of
the new companies. As a consequence, early reports of irrigation were inaccur-
ate, but the optimistic estimates of irrigated acreages were the basis for
water diversions, so there was (and continues to be) abundant supplies of
water for developed land.
Through the years, some of the irrigation companies failed and others
were consolidated, so that today there are five companies which supply all
of the water diverted under original decrees. These are: The Grand Valley
Irrigation Company, the Grand Valley Water Users Association, the Palisade
Irrigation District, the Mesa County Irrigation District, and the Redlands
Water and Power Company. Water was developed by the Bureau of Reclamation
in 1916 and is distributed by the Grand Valley Water Users Association.
In the last two or three decades there has been a decline in the acreage
Irrigated due to waterlogging of some soils. This is indicative of problems
of management of soils and water, probably of overirrigation which caused
23
-------
TADLE 3. USES OF LAND IN GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO, 19731 (Leathers, 1975).
Class! f icat ion
1 rrigated
Cropland
Farmsteads
Suburbs/
Residential
Idle
SUBTOTAL
Urban
Stockyards
Industrial
Natural Ponds
Phreatophytes
Precipitation
Only
TOTAL
Colorado River Water
Govt. High line
ac
20,733
685
100
2,100
23,618
743
200
—
635
6,554
10,429
42,179
ha
8,397
277
41
851
9,565
301
81
—
257
2,654
/t,224
17,083
Govt. Orchard Mesa
ac
6,774
234
652
928
8,588
703
182
___
135
850
11,422
ha
2,743
95
264
_376
3,478
285
74
•—
55
344
390
4,626
Private
Systems
ac
28,097
1,477
1,384
4,972
35,930
5,540
394
642
866
6,568
3,979
53,919
ha
11,379
598
561
2,014
14,552
2,244
160
260
351
2,660
1,612
21,837
Gunnison River Water
Adjacent
to River
ac
320
5
_--
325
44
—
83
2,107
5,181
722
8,462
ha
130
2
___
—
132
18
—
34
853
2,098
292
3,427
Redlands
ac
1,568
69
700
607
2,944
677
40
___
63
1,191
1.235
6,150
ha
635
28
284
246
1,192
274
16
—
26
482
500
2,491
Total
ac
57,492
2,470
2,836
8,607
71,405
7,707
816
725
3,806
20,344
17,329
122,132
ha
23,2811
1,000
1,149
3,486
28,919
3,121
330
29
-------
TABLE
USE OF IRRIGATED LAUD FOR CROPS, GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO, 1969 and 1973 (Leathers, 1975) l
Corn (Grain
£ Ens.)
Sugar Beets
Sm. Grains
Alfalfa
Hay Grass
Pasture
Orchard
Truck Crops
Turfgrass
Grass Seed
Other
TOTAL
Colorado River
Government Highline
19732
F>c
6,316
2,001*
2,710
6,292
951
2,005
200
31*
45
148
28
20,733
na
2,558
812
1,098
2,548
385
812
81
14
18
60
11
0,397
19693
ac
5,979
3,452
2,622
7,019
450
1,591
695
287
126
?.2,221
na
2,422
1,398
1,062
2,843
182
644
282
116
51
9,000
Government Orchard Mesa
19
ac
861
---
78
1,242
128
1,589
2,681
161
34
6,744
73
ha
349
32
503
52
644
1,086
65
14
2,731
19
ac
767
51
355
948
233
741
3,493
197
—
6,785
69
ha
311
21
144
384
94
300
1,415
80
—
2,748
Private Systems'*
1973
ac
6,548
1,578
3,599
5,815
2,414
5,627
2,071
94
113
76
162
28,097
ha
2,652
639
1,458
2,355
978
2,279
839
38
46
31
66
11,379
1969
ac
7,511
1,726
4,354
6,262
1,855
5,165
2,403
360
17
29,653
' ha
3,042
699
1.763
2,536
751
2,092
973
146
7
12,009
Gunnison River
Private Redlands
ac
168
---
73
526
_-.
614
180
7
1,568
ha
68
30
213
249
73
3
635
ac
124
32
73
531
31
1,254
371
38
2,454
ha
50
13
30
215
13
508
150
15
994
TOTAL
1973
ac
13,893
3,582
6,460
13,875
3,493
9,835
5,132
296
158
224
224
57,172
ha
5,615
1,451
2,616
5,619
1,415
3,983
2,078
120
64
91
91
23,"5
1969
ac
14,381
5,261
7,404
14,760
3,569
8,751
6,962
882
143
61 ,113
ha
5,824
2,131
2,999
5,978
1,445
3,544
2,820
357
58
24,751
hO
ui
Land use criteria used for these studies varied considerably, an effort was made to make them comparable.
Land Use Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, 1973-
Walker and Skogerboe, 19&9.
Does not include land Irrigated directly from river.
-------
water tables to rise. In addition, there has been loss of irrigated land to
urbanization. The City of Grand Junction has grown significantly and has
required land area formerly used in crops production.
Waterlogging and salinity problems led to studies of irrigation effici-
ency in the 1950's. Valleywide efficiencies of only 39 to 40 percent were
documented. Average river diversions were found to exceed 600,000 acre-feet
(74,000 ha-m) annually. Crop requirements were estimated at only 175,000
acre-feet (21,600 ha-m) annually. Low priced project water contributed to
wasteful use. The studies caused little change in irrigation practices.
Costs of production are suggested by the data in Table 5- These data
were developed for a study of land and water use in agriculture in the Grand
Valley and reflect production costs and crop prices in 1973-
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Human Ecology
The Grand Valley is essentially rural in nature, with Grand Junction
serving as the urban hub. Situated in Mesa County, the Valley is comprised
of people of which 3.6 percent of the population are farmers or farm managers.
The median years of education for the population is 12.2 years for men and
12.3 years for women. Unemployment rates are 5-8 percent for males and 4.8
percent for females. The median income if $8,065 while the per capita income
is $2,658 (Appendix A). Urban growth is expanding fairly rapidly, the rural
farm population is declining, and the majority of the farm land is owned by
independent, family-size farm operations.
These are some of the critical parameters that one looks at when attempt-
ing to introduce an innovation into a social system. Thus, this description
of the social characteristics will entail those aspects of the social situa-
tion that are deemed important when looking at the possible implementation of
an innovative program for improving irrigation return flow quality. This
description will first look at the degree of urbanization and growth in the
Valley, and then look at three conditions within the Valley: 1) the rural
farm population and the rural nonfarm population; 2) the type of farm'organ-
ization; and 3) a description of the farm operation. From these parameters,
a picture of the social situation that any innovation will have to encounter
will emerge, and these will be the facilitators and constraints of any
implementation policy.
A little less than half of the Valley's population lives in urban areas
(47-8 percent) and most of those people live in Grand Junction (20,170). The
growth rate of the Valley as a whole is moderate (7.2 percent), and Grand /
Junction's growth rate is commensurate with the country's rate. Further '
growth will depend on tourism and the exploitation of natural resources like
coal, oil shale, natural gas, and petroleum. However, projections speculate
that the city of Grand Junction will increase its 1970 population of 20,170
to about 31,400 by the year 2000, and the county as a whole will inhabit
100,000 people at that time.
26
-------
TABLE 5- CROP PRODUCTION COSTS AND RETURNS, GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO, 1973.*
Crop
Corn (grain)
Small Grains:
Malting Barley
Mi 1 1 i ng Wheat
Sugar Beets
Permanent Pasture — 7
Alfalfa Hay
Unit
Bu.
Bu.
Bu.
Tons
months
Tons
Average
Yield
Per Acre
115
65
70
21
pasture rent
4.5
Forage Value
D.lt; of Crop Residue
Price Per Acre
$2.50 $1
$3-00
$2.65
$30
@ $15/mo/ac
$45
1.00
$6.00
$9-00
Total
Gross Revenue
Per Acre
$298.50
$195.00
$185.50
$636.00
$105.00
$211.50
Operating
Costs
Per Acre
$160.89
$114.20
$105.97
$318.75
$ 89.20
$118.98
Net Return
Per Acre
$137.61
$ 80.80
$ 79-53
$318.25
$ 15.80
$ 92.52
* Leathers, K.L. (1975), "The Economics of Managing Saline Irrigation Return Flows in the Upper
Colorado River Basin: A Case Study of Grand Valley, Colorado." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
-------
The first condition within the Valley that will influence an innovation
is the situation regarding the rural nonfarm population and the rural farm
population. Rural farm is defined by the census as residents living in a
place of ten acres (k ha) or more from which sales of farm products of the
preceding year amount to $50 or more, or a place less than 10 acres (A.05 ha)
from which sales of farm products of the preceding year amount to $250 or
more. In short, this definition distinguishes a population who utilize the
land in a different manner.
This rural nonfarm population has an equivalent level of formal education
as that of the rural farm population, it has a higher median income, and a
higher per capita income (Appendix A). Approximately 28 percent of the rural
farm population are farmers or farm managers, while only 3 percent of the
rural nonfarm population are farmers or farm managers. The rural nonfarm
population is increasing slightly while the rural farm population is dropping
(Appendix A). These two populations will generally perceive their relationship
to the land somewhat differently and this will carry over into the management
of their irrigation system.
A second condition describes 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 the number of farm units,
but also the acreage under control. Partnerships are the next most predomi-
nant unit while corporate farms generate some impact in the area.
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. In the
Grand Valley, the full owner farms greatly outnumber the other type of tenured
farms, but this type of farm in terms of acreage falls just below the part-
owner farms. These part-owner operators can be part-time farmers, farmers
renting land from other retired or elderly farmers, or they may be managers
of other farms. Therefore, here are two additional types of farmers who will
view their operations and any innovations brought to them from different
perspectives.
The third condition that directs how an innovation will be received is
the operation of the farm; i.e., the amount of irrigation utilized and the
productivity of the farm. The category that contains the largest number of
farm units is the one with the size of the units being 10-49 acres (Appendix
A). Yet, the concentration of acres irrigated are contained in the units
whose size ranges from 260 acres to 1,000 acres (105~405 ha). Again, two
possibly different perspectives on farming and irrigating may be present.
There are enough farm units that cover the whole range of farm sizes that
innovations must take this diversity into account.
In addition, the productivity of the farm unit will determine to some
extent how an innovation will be accepted. The Valley's largest category is
classified as part-time, 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
28
-------
farm 100 days or more in the census year (Appendix A). The largest category
contains the farms that produce from $2,500-$7,500 per year. In addition to
these two distinguishable areas of concentration,there are a significant num-
ber of farms spread throughout the income categories. Therefore, in intro-
ducing an innovation, while the two main categories should be the focus of
concentration, one cannot simply center the attack on these groups alone.
In summary, Grand Valley is a rural area that is experiencing moderate
growth. The farm units are mostly owned by independent, family-farm organi-
zations of which most—approximately 88 percent--uti 1 ize irrigation. A vast
majority of the farms are smaller units with the larger operations on the
western side of the Valley. At the center of this Valley is Grand Junction.
A future concern to this Valley that will have some effect on irrigation
return flow quality is the potential energy development that will probably
take place in the near future.
Institutional Setting
The organizational framework affecting irrigation in the Valley discussed
in this report focuses around the Grand Valley unit of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Project (CRBSCP). This project is a result of the
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program which is designed to "provide
for programs upstream from the Imperial Dam (Arizona) necessary to stabilize
the salinity of the Colorado River." The project is the first study conducted
to determine the effect of a salinity management practice in the Grand Valley
on the quality conditions of the Colorado River. The following section will
discuss the different organizations involved with this project (see Figure 9).
The CRBSCP has two focuses: action and research. Two plans of action have
been considered to control salinity: 1) the Water Systems Improvement Pro-
gram (WSI); and 2) the Grand Valley Irrigation Management Services (IMS).
The main purpose of WSI is to line canals and laterals, and construct measur-
ing devices at all the turnouts from the canals to the laterals. For the IMS,
on-farm improvements are the critical features. The improvements include
lining ditches, automating delivery systems, use of sprinklers, and most
important, irrigation scheduling. This program is planned to increase irri-
gation efficiencies from approximately 33 percent to approximately 60 percent.
The Bureau of Reclamation was ,named by Congress as the organization
responsible for this action program (P.L. 93~320, the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act). Studies have been made by the Bureau to establish a
salinity control program in the Grand Valley since 1972, and were to be com-
pleted by June 30, 1976. An Environmental Impact Statement on Salinity con-
trol for the basin has also been prepared. The Bureau's plan is to have an
extensive program of canal and lateral lining which would be financed 75 per-
cent by the Federal Government in nonreimbursable funds, and which would have
the remaining 25 percent split between the Upper BasJ.n and the Lower Basin,
each obtaining the funds through their power contracts. The total cost of
this program was estimated at around $75 million in 1975.
The Bureau contracted with the SCS to look at the on-farm management
aspect of the salinity problem. A report by the SCS on this situation was
29
-------
Salini ty Forum-
Colorado River
Basin States
-STATE OF COLORADO
r Colorado Water Conservation Board
State Engineer
Water Pollution Control Commission
• Grand Valley Unit: Colorado OUTSIDE —
i River Basin Salinity Control Project i RESEARCH
CSU
Colorado Water
Conservation Board
USBR
ACT 1 ON
f
PROGRAM
SCS
Grand Valley Canal Systems, Inc.
G.V. Ir
Com
rlgation
pany
G.V, Water
Users'
Association
Orchard
Mesa
1 ,D.
n
Redlands
Water 5
Power Co.
Palisade
1.
3.
Fruita
£ Cana
Mesa County
l.[
).
Land
Co.
.._*
I RESEA
Grand Junction
Drainage
District
USBR
USGS
i
ICH |
Grand Valle
/ Sal ini ty
Coordinating Committee
r EPA
ARS
• USBR
• SCS
L USGS
r SCS
\- ARS
EPA-Region VIII L CSU
Colorado Water Conservation Board
• Colorado River Water Conservancy Board
Grand Valley Canal Systems, Inc.
Grand
Grand
Grand
Val ley Water
Users Association
Valley Irrigation Company
Junction Drainage District
Chamber of Commerce
*• Mesa Soil Conservation District
Individual Farmer
Figure 9. Organizational representation of salinity program in Grand Valley.
-------
due at the end of June, 1976. The projected cost of this program has been
estimated at $28 million, of which $7 million has already been defined as
being implemented previously by farmers' improvements. It is not known at
this time where the funds for this program are to be obtained. A program of
action to improve on-farm management is seen to begin tentatively in the Fall
of 1977- The critical concern of the Bureau with regard to on-farm manage-
ment, and therefore the thrust of the program, was set to be with irrigation
scheduling. The question of cost sharing still needs to be resolved for on-
farm improvements.
In 1967, irrigation interests in the Grand Valley became concerned with
the potential financial responsibility to the Valley by downstream salinity
damages, and formed the Grand Valley Water Purification Project, Inc., in
1968. It consisted of various irrigation companies and districts and was
formed to deal with the Federal Government on the salinity control demonstra-
tion project involving canal lining. After completion of the first grant, the
corporation reorganized in 1972 as a new association named the Grand Valley
Canal Systems, Inc. With the same goals, this association comprises a number
of organizations: 1) the Grand Valley Irrigation Company; 2) the Grand Valley
Water User's Association; 3) the Redlands Water and Power Company; k) the
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District; 5) the Palisade Irrigation District; 6) the
Mesa County Irrigation District; and 7) the Grand Junction Drainage District.
Four of the irrigation entities divert water directly from the Colorado
River: 1) the Grand Valley Irrigation Company; 2) the Grand Valley Water
User's Association; 3) the Palisade Irrigation District; and k) the Mesa
County Irrigation District. The Redlands Power and Water Company diverts
water from the Gunnison River and the rest of the companies have carriage
agreements with the major companies for delivery of water. The various
companies in the Valley serve areas as large as 46,678 acres (18,905 ha), of
which 29,727 acres (12,039 ha) are agricultural cropland under the Grand
Valley Canal Company to agricultural croplands of 608 acres (2k6 ha) under
the Mesa County Irrigation District.
In addition to Grand Valley Canal Systems, Inc., another organization was
developed in response to the salinity situation: the Grand Valley Salinity
Coordinating Committee. The purpose of this Committee is "to eliminate dup-
lication of effort and bring about a better understanding of salinity control
programs." This Committee is made ,up of numerous Federal, state and local
groups interested and involved with the various salinity control programs
(see Figure 9).
Some of the responsibilities of the major organizations include conserv-
ation programs on the farms—the Mesa Soil Conservation District, ASCS, and
the SCS. Organizations involved with on-farm management practices include
Colorado State University, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, USDA Agricultural
Research Servcie, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the local entities.
These on-farm management practices include automated irrigation systems,
canal and lateral lining and irrigation scheduling.
Other agencies are strictly concerned with the second aspect of this
Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project: research. The USDI,
31
-------
Geological Survey's main concern is to provide other working agencies with^
streamflow and water quality information needed to assess salt load conditions.
Other research money is going to the USDI, Bureau of Reclamation to measure
application rates and their relation to salinity output, to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board for study of automated systems, and to Colorado State Uni-
versity for various kinds of salinity research, to name a few.
Emanating from this Salinity Control Program, numerous organizations
have performed many tasks. Some tasks have been with regard to research while
others take on a more action-oriented posture. It is hoped that these efforts
will combine to reduce salinity in the Colorado River.
LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS
Historical Aspects of Colorado Water Law
Colorado is an appropriation doctrine state. Even before the acquisition
of statehood, the common law riparian doctrine had been rejected (see language
of Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6, Colo. 4*t3, 1882). Colorado was the very
first state to adopt a pure appropriation system; thus, the term "Colorado
Doctrine" was coined to delineate this water law system from later modifica-
tions found in other western states.
The Colorado Doctrine is set forth in the State Const!tution,which de-
clares that the unappropriated water of every natural stream is the property
of the public, subject to appropriation, and the right to divert unappropri-
ated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied
(Colo. Const., Art. XVI, Sees. 5 and 6). Another Constitutional expression
of the appropriation doctrine is found in Article XVI, Sec. 6, which provides
that as between those using water for the same purpose, priority of appropri-
ation1 shall give the better right.
These Constitutional expressions have been supplemented by legislation,
which states that:
All water originating in or flowing into this state, whether
found on the surface or underground, has always been and is
hereby declared to be the property of the public, dedicated
to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropria-
tion and use in accordance with law (C.R.S., Sec. 37-82-101,
1973).
In the early development of the prior appropriation doctrine, a water
right was created by a diversion of water and the application of the water to
a beneficial use. This right was placed in the priority system by a decree |
from a judge. Failure to have the right decreed rendered it junior to those
who had adjudicated rights (Hardesty Reservoir, Canal and Land Co. v. Arkansas
Valley Sugar Beet and Irrigated Land Co., 85 Colo. 555, 277 P.763, 1929). If
a water right was perfected before the adoption of the recording system, it
was not affected (Larimer and Weld Reservoir Co. v. Fort Collins Milling and
Elevator Co., 60 Colo. 241, 152 P.1160, 1915)-
32
-------
This system of adjudicating rights by judicial decree was modified in
1969 with the passage of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-101, et. seq. as amended). This Act will be discussed in
further detail in the next section. Basically, the Act created special water
courts and made some administrative changes in the water rights system.
Water quality control did not find its origin in state law. Rather, it
began through the efforts of the Federal Government in controlling discharge
into navigable waterways. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 granted juris-
diction of discharge control to the Army Corps of Engineers. The first sig-
nificant Federal legislation for water pollution control was enacted in 1956
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, P.L. 83-660.0, July 9, 1956).
Numerous amendments and specific laws on water pollution were enacted during
the next 15 years, but in 1972 the theory and scope of water pollution enforce-
ment were drastically revised with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500, Oct. 18, 1972). This law ex-
panded Federal enforcement to interstate waters and adopted a two-pronged
enforcement approach based upon water quality standards and effluent discharge
1imi tat ions.
In 1966, the Colorado Water Pollution Control Act was enacted to prevent,
abate and control the pollution of the state's waters and to establish stream
standards. This law was amended in the following year to allow for the adop-
tion of effluent standards in order to rectify particular discharge problems
that exceeded stream standards. These amendments also created the Colorado
Water Pollution Control Commission to administer the law.
In 1973, Colorado adopted the Water Quality Control Act of 1973 (C.R.S.,
Sec. 25-8-101 to 25-8-704, 1973). This act was passed in recognition of the
fact that the pollution of state waters was a menace to public health, a
nuisance to the public, harmful to wildlife and aquatic life, detrimental to
beneficial uses of waters of the State, and in close interaction with water
pollution problems in adjoining states (C.R.S., Sec. 25~8-202(1)). These
acts and their administration will be examined in greater detail in a later
section.
State Quantity Laws
In General--
The state constitution provides that the unappropriated water of every
natural stream is the property of the public dedicated to the use of the
people of the state and subject to appropriation (Colo. Const. Art. XVI,
Sec. 5). Furthermore, the constitution states that "the right to divert the
unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be
denied" (Ibid., Sec. 6). Between those using water for the same purpose, the
first in time is the first in right and the use of water for domestic purposes
is preferred over agricultural uses, which is in turn preferred over manufac-
turing purposes (JJmL).
Any appropriative right is a right to possess and use the water as opposed
to an ownership of the corpus and is characterized as an interest in real
property— an usufruct. It is a vested and valuable property right which is
33
-------
given protection by the state constitution (Town of Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch
Ext. Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 P. 339, 1908), but it is subject to certain limit-
ations and conditions of use. Coupled with every right is a corresponding
duty. Used in a context relating to water law, the duty is to use the water
beneficially or without waste. The term usufructuary must be limited to de-
fining one's corresponding duty to the water. The word "duty" is the corre-
lative of a right. Thus, wherever there exists a right in any person, there
also rests a corresponding duty upon some other person or upon all persons
generally (Ibid).
An appropriation is the intent to take the water accompanied by some open
physical demonstration (Elk-Rifle Water Co. v. Templeton, 173 Colo. 438,
484 P.2d 1211, 1971). The appropriation is made when the act evidencing the
intent is performed (Ibid. ). Thus, when a user indicates an intent to take
the water for a beneficial use by some open, physical demonstration and then
actually applies the water to the designated use, an appropriation arises
(Ibid.).
An appropriator is required to have a reasonable means of diversion and
he cannot command the whole flow of a stream just to aid his taking a fraction
of the whole flow to which he is entitled (Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148
Colo. 458, 366 P. 2d 552, 1961). In Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. Chew, the court
held that an appropriative right could not be enlarged or extended beyond an
amount beneficially needed and used for the original undertaking for which the
priority was awarded. Thus, a priority will be enforced against junior
appropriators only to the extent of that water which has been historically
needed and used by the senior appropriator (Enlarged Southside Irr. Ditch Co.
v. John's Flood Ditch Co., 116 Colo. 580, 183 P.2d 552, 1947).
Appropriators are entitled to a supply in the order of their priority.
Thus, the most senior appropriator is entitled to his quantity without inter-
ference (Comstock v. Ramsay, 55 Colo. 244, 133 P. 1107, 1913), even if his
right is for storage for future use (People v. Hinderlider, 505 P.2d 894,
1936), even when there is insufficient water in the source of a common supply
to meet the demands of junior appropriators (Strickler v. Colo. Springs, 16
Colo. 61, 26 P- 313, 1891).
The appropriation of water for future use under the conditional decree
system was liberalized in a series of 1950-1967 cases. The change occurred in
the doctrine of relation back where major transmountain diversion projects are
involved. Relation back has been defined as:
— that operation by which the appropriation of water relates
back to the time when the first step to secure that appropri-
ation was taken, if the work from that step on was prosecuted
with reasonable diligence (Taussig v. Moffat Tunnel Water Anc
Development Co., 106 Colo. 384, 106 P.2d 363,
This doctrine developed in response to the problem created by large projects
in which water rights could be lost due to the delay in applying the water to
a beneficial use. The right given is a conditional right which ripens into a
permanent right upon completion of the project and application of the water to
a beneficial use. _.
-------
Beneficial Use—
Beneficial use was defined by the General Assembly in 1969 as:
...the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and
appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomp-
lish without waste the purpose for which appropriation is
lawfully made and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing includes the impoundment of water for recreational
purposes, including fishery or wiIdlife (C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-
103).
Uses recognized as beneficial are domestic, agricultural, industrial, munici-
pal, and recreational (Colo. Const. Art. XVI, Sec. 6). Denver v. Sheriff
(105 Colo. 193, 96 P.2d 836, 1939) held that an appropriator cannot divert
more water than he reasonably needs for his intended beneficial use. The
court went on to say that the amount depends upon the nature, place and time
of use and varying duties of water can be established dependent upon circum-
stances of each case (City and County of Denver v. Brown, 56 Colo. 216, 138
P.44, 1914). Thus, the concept of beneficial use prescribes the types of uses
and the basi's for determining or measuring the water right. An appropriative
right cannot be enlarged or extended beyond the amount beneficially needed and
used for the original undertaking for which the priority was awarded (Ft. Lyon
Canal Co. v. Chew. 33 Colo. 392, 81 P.37, 1905).
Abandonment and Forfeiture of Water Rights—
Colorado has no forfeiture statute but a water right can be lost by
abandonment, adverse possession, condemnation, and by the power of eminent
domain. Abandonment procedures are instituted by either civil suit or through
administrative initiative by the State Engineer. When an appropriator has
failed for a period of ten years to apply his water to a beneficial use, a
rebuttable presumption of abandonment arises (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-402, Sec.
37~92-103). Administrative procedures for the operation of administrative
abandonment are set forth in C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-402.
Abandonment of a water right means the termination of water right in
whole or in part as a result of the intent of the owner to discontinue the use
permanently (21 Colo. 357, 40 P.989, 1895). To abandon means "to forsake;
give up wholly; quit; to discontinue, desert, relinquish, surrender, vacate,
or give up" (Putnam v. Curtis, 7 Colo. App. 437, 431 P.1056, 1894). The mere
nonuse of a water right does not work an abandonment (F^ruit Growers Ditch Res.
Co. v. Donald. 97 Colo. 264, 41 P.2d 516, 1935), but in the New Mercer Ditch
Co. v. Armstrong Water Commission (21 Colo. 357, 40 P.989, 1895), the court
held that an appropriator cannot for an unreasonable time hold water for
speculative purposes and make no beneficial use of it or divert more than he
needs for the purpose for which the diversion was made.
The party who seeks to prove the abandonment has the burden of proof
(White v. NuskolIs. 49 Colo. 170, 1910). When a priority has been abandoned
other users on the stream can appropriate such waters in the order of their
priorities (North Boulder Farmers Ditch Co. v. Legett Pitch Res. Co.). If a
water right has been obtained by deed, then abandonment cannot take place
until sufficient time has passed to create a prescriptive right in another
35
-------
user, which is 20 years (Fruit Growers Ditch Res. Co. v. Donald, loc. cit.).
A period of 40 years of nonuse has been held to be prima facie evidence of an
intent to abandon (Ibid.). Justification for nonuse may exist if economic,
legal, or financial problems or natural disaster prevents the use of decreed
waters (Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Twin Lakes Reservoir,
506 P.2d 1226, 1973). "~
Surface Waters--
The previous discussion applies to both surface and ground water rights
in general. The following materials focus specifically upon the acquisition
and administration of surface waters.1
As was previously stated, a right to use water can be initiated by diver-
sion and application of unappropriated water to beneficial use. A person who
wants a determination of a water right and the amount and priority thereof
must file an application with the water clerk (C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-302). Any
person who wishes to oppose an application must file with the water clerk a
verified statement of opposition which sets forth the facts as to why the
application should not be granted or granted in part or on certain conditions
(Ibid.). In determining a water right, standards to be considered are:
1) that the priority date awarded shall be that date on which the appropria-
tion was initiated if the appropriation was completed with reasonable diligence;
2) change of a water right will be approved if the change will not injure owners
of vested rights; and 3) substituted water must be of a quality and quantity to
satisfy the requirements of senior appropriators (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-305).
The flow chart shown in Figure 10 illustrates the procedures to be followed in
adjudication of a water right in Colorado.
Priority is determined in an adjudication proceeding before a water judge.
An application is made to the division water clerk and may be referred to a
referee or decided by a water judge. Priority means "the seniority by date as
of which a water right will be entitled to use and the relative seniority of a
water right or a conditioned water right in relation to other water rights and
conditional water rights deriving their supply from a common source."
Ground Waters—
Little legislative or court action is found concerning ground water in
the early history of Colorado due to the lack of extensive use of ground water
supplies until recently. The first legislative step toward controlling ground
water occurred in 1953, following the Supreme Court's finding in Safranek v.
Limon (123 Colo. 330, 228, P.2d 975, 1951) that Colorado water law was defi-
cient with respect to ground waters. The law authorized ground water studies
and required filing well logs.2
Evolution and Admini strajtipnjjf Colorado Water Law: 1876-1976^ by
Radosevich, et_ aj_., Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado,
1976.
2 See David L. Harrison and Gustav Sandstrom, Jr., "The Groundwater-Sur-
face Water Conflict and Recent Colorado Water Legislation," University_ _qf_
Colorado Law Review k3, 1971.
36
-------
FILE WITH CLERK FOR WATER RIGHT-.
Copies of Application and
Opposition Provided to State
and Division Engineer
A***********************************************************************
Resume of Application(s)
Published in Newspaper(s)
Statement of
Opposi tion Files
**************************************************************************
No Opposition to Application
No Protest
Application Confirmed and Approved
No Appelate Review Allowed
Opposition to Appl!cat ion
Referee Makes a Ruling
Disapproves All or Part
Approves Application
Referred to Judge for Ruling
Hearing Held
I
Protested Ruling
Judge May
I
Confirm Modify Reverse
Reverse and Reprimand
Appellate Review Allowed
Figure 10. Application of adjudication procedures for water rights in Colorado.
-------
However, it was not until 1957 that the first "ground water law" was
passed. This law was applicable to all subsurface waters (Law of May 1, 1957,
Colorado Session Laws, 863). The four major provisions of the law were:
1) by July, I960, all ground water users must file statements with the State
Engineer, setting forth such information as the nature, extent, location, and
quantity of their withdrawals and use; 2) a ground water commission was cre-
ated; 3) the commission had the power to designate "tentatively critical
ground water districts in areas where the withdrawal of ground water appears
to have approached, reached, or exceeded the normal rate of replenishment;"
and 4) no new wells could be drilled or the supply from existing wells in-
creased without first obtaining a permit from the State Engineer. The law
set the basic institutional framework for ground water allocation and manage-
ment in Colorado. But, due to the particular limitation for maintaining an
area as "critical" under the 1957 Act, it was repealed and reenacted in 1965
(Moses and Varnesh, 1966).
The present statutory status of ground water laws in Colorado is the
result of two major legislative enactments in subsequent amendments to the
basic acts. In 1965, the "Ground Water Management Act" was adopted (C.R.S.,
Ann., Sec. 148-18-1 to 38, 1965, Supp., now cited as C.R.S., Sec. 37-90-101
to 141). It primarily addressed the nontributary waters. The lack of speci-
fic legislation or judicial guidance for tributary waters and the emerging
problems in the Arkansas, South Platte and Rio Grande Valleys led to the
enactment of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-101 to 602). Aside from sweeping changes in the process
of water administration and the introduction of a tabulation system, the 1969
Act attempted to fill the gap in legislation by addressing the tributary
ground water issue. These two acts are consistent with an early Colorado
decision recognizing two categories of ground water: 1) tributary ground
water; and 2) nontributary ground water (Medano Ditch Co. v. Adams, 29 Colo.
317, 66 P.431, 1902). The court held the former refers to waters that, if
left to flow, will become part of a natural stream, and the latter refers to
waters which will not become part of any natural stream.
There are four key procedural features of the 1965 Act which enable the
state to allocate and manage designated ground waters. They are the reinsti-
tution of a permit system for acquiring rights to withdraw and. use designated
ground water (C.R.S., Sec. 37-90-107), the creation of the Colorado Ground
Water Commission within the Division of Water Resources to designate ground
water basins and determine the allocation and administration of waters within
the basins (C.R.S., Sec. 37-90-104), the granting of authority and jurisdic-
tion over administration and distribution of waters and protection of vested
rights to the State Engineer with the flexibility of enabling his office to
grant permits for small capacity wells in deep aquifers (C.R.S., Sec. 37~90-
105 and 137), and finally, the authority to form water management districts
to continue the administration and management of waters within designated
ground water basins (see C.R.S., Sec. 37~90-118 to 135 for the procedures to
organize a ground water management district).
Any person desiring to appropriate ground water for a beneficial use in
a designated ground water basin is required to make application to the Ground
Water Commission. The Commission will make a preliminary evaluation of the
38
-------
application and notify other water users by publication in a local newspaper
of the application. If no objections are filed and the Commission feels that
no damage will be caused by the well and that it will not contribute to un-
reasonable waste, it shall direct the State Engineer to issue a conditional
permit (C.R.S., Sec. 37-90-10?).
Having received a conditional decree from the State Engineer, the appli-
cant must proceed with "due diligence" in the construction of the well and
apply the water to a beneficial use (C.R.S., Sec. 37-90-107). If all require-
ments of the Commission have been met and the water has been put to a benefi-
cial use, the Commission will direct the State Engineer to issue a final
permit to use designated ground water at a given rate.
Concerning the priority date established for wells, the law states that
"priority of claims for the appropriation of designated ground water shall be
determined by the doctrine of prior appropriation" (C.R.S., Sec. 37~90-109(1)).
Prior to the enactment of the above-mentioned article, the effective date of
the appropriation was based on the actual removal of designated ground water
and its application to a beneficial use. Subsequent to the passage of the
appropriate sections, the effective date of an appropriation is based on the
date of filing an application with the Commission.
The right to use water under a permit from the Ground Water Commission is
for use only upon the lands designated in the application (C.R.S., Sec. 37~90~
107(1)). These water rights are thus appurtenant to specific lands and cannot
be used to irrigate other lands without first receiving authorization from the
Commission.
Tributary Ground Waters—
During the past decade, Colorado has experienced conflicts over the use
of surface and tributary ground waters and attempts of resolution through lit-
igation and legislation. Basically, the law protects senior water rights and
optimum use of the State's water resources. But, in the early 1950's, the
law was deficient or unable to resolve two key areas of conflict: 1) deter-
mination of priorities between surface and well water users; and 2) determi-
nation of priorities and rights between well water users. The 1965 Ground
Water Management Act resolved the major issues of water allocation and
administration for non-tributary waters, but the tributary water problem
was still to be faced.
The current law governing tributary water within the State was passed in
1969 and is known as the "Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of
1969." The legislative declaration of the Act acknowledges the interrelation-
ships of ground and surface waters:
It is the policy of this state to integrate the appropriation,
use and administration of underground water tributary to a
stream with the use of surface water in such a way as to max-
imize the beneficial use of all the waters of this state
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-102(1)).
39
-------
To carry out this policy, and in full recognition of the inadequacy of
past laws on the subject, the legislature set out the following principles to
be applied in developing a sound and flexible program of integrated water use
in the State. They are:
1. All previously vested rights and uses protected by law,
including an appropriation from a well, shall be protected
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-201 (1)).
2. The present use of wells, either independently, or in
conjunction with surface rights, shall be given the fullest
possible recognition. However, this principle wi 1 1 be lim-
ited to existing vested rights. Each diverter must establish
a reasonable means of diversion and he cannot command the
whole flow to take his appropriation (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-
201 (2) (c), 1973).
3. Use of a well may be an alternative or supplemental
source for a surface decree (C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-301(3)
4. No junior appropriator can be limited unless this
reduction would result in an increased water supply avail-
able to the senior appropriator (C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-502(2)).
The significance of the 1969 Act, aside from its setting policy to inte-
grate the surface and ground waters of the State, is the approaches and proce-
dures it advocates. The Act creates a unique system of water administration
in the State with various power divided between the water courts established
in each of the seven water divisions and the Office of State Engineer and the
division engineers. The courts approve applications for water rights and
adjudicate such rights while the State Engineer and his staff have responsi-
bility for administration and distribution of the waters of the State. Since
under the doctrine of prior appropriation water shortages require shutting off
junior diversions, the ultimate effect upon most well users is restricted
pumping. However, the law provides the opportunity for water users to deve'l-
op an "augmentation plan" to prevent strict regulation under priorities
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-307). Other important features of the law provide for
obtaining an alternate point of diversion (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-301 (a) and (d)),
adjudicating wells (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-601), and exempting certain wells from
adjudication .requi rements (C.R.S., Sec. 37"92-60l).
State Water Quantity Agencies and Administration
There are several Colorado agencies that have a direct interest in water
administration, but only three line agencies have direct control over the
water resources at the state level.3 These three agencies are:
3 See: Clyde-Criddle-Woodward, Inc., Report on Colorado Water Administra-
tion, Denver: Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources, 1968, p. 14. Much of the
administrative information reported here is based on this study.
-------
1. The Division of Water Resources (State Engineer),
2. The Colorado Water Conservation Board.
3. The Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission.
In addition, Colorado introduced special "water courts" in 1969 which decree
water rights and resolve "water matters" within this jurisdiction.
The Division of Water Resources—
The Division of Water Resources is within the Department of Natural Re-
sources and is administratively headed by the State Engineer- It is composed
of a Water Operations section, Engineering section and Hearing (or Legal)
Section. The Water Operations Section administers the use and distribution
of the State's surface and ground water and is broken down into the Ground
Water and Surface Branches. The Engineering Section provides technical sup-
port for administration in the fields of records and files, hydrography,
hydrology, and dams and reservoirs. This section, in turn, is broken down
into the Records, Dams and Reservoirs, Hydrographic and Investigation Branches.
The Hearing or Legal Section is responsible for advising the State Engineer
and coordinating legal matters surrounding the Colorado water problems and
conf1icts.
Colorado is typical of most of the Western states in that it depends on
a State Engineer to administer its water control functions. The principal
responsibility of the State Engineer "is to administer the laws...pertaining
to water rights and, at the request of the Governor, to render service and
give counsel to other agencies of the state" (Clyde-Criddle-Woodward, 1968,
p. 15). The Governor appoints the State Engineer, pursuant to Article XII,
Section 13, of the constitution of the State of Colorado" (C.R.S., Sec. 37~
80-101). He must be a person qualified to be a registered engineer in Colorado
with knowledge and experience in areas essential to the proper discharge of
his duties and functions (C.R.S., Sec. 37-80-113(1)(a)). He reports to the
Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources. He is the execu-
tive officer in charge of supervising the work of all division engineers and
has executive responsibility and authority with respect to: carrying out the
terms of compacts and judicial orders; securing and implementing legal opin-
ions and assistance regarding the work within his jurisdiction; coordinating
the work of the division of water resources with other departments of the
state government; supervising employees in the office of the division of
water resources; preparing and keeping records and investigations as related
to the functions of the division, including water well licensing; making rules
for the division of water resources; supervising the measurement, record-
keeping, and distribution of the public waters; and collecting and distribut-
ing data on snowfall and prediction of probable runoff. The State Engineer
has authority to delegate any other person to the obligation to discharge
duties imposed upon him (C.R.S., Sec. 37-80-102(1-8)). Finally, he is a
member of the Western States Water Council, Board of Examiners, Water Well
and Pump Installation Contractors, Colorado Ground Water Commission, Colorado
Water Conservation Board, and Irrigation District Commission. He has also
been appointed the Commissioner of the Rio Grande River, Republican River,
La Platta River, South Platte River, and Cost!1 la Creek Compacts.
-------
To assist the Office of the State Engineer in administering the State's
waters, seven water divisions were created for the nine drainage basins in the
State in 1969, thereby eliminating the previous 70 districts. Water distribu-
tion and administration of laws at division and local levels are carried out
by a division engineer and his staff. The former is appointed by the State
Engineer (C.R.S., Sec. 37~92-201 and 202).
The seven division engineers have been directed to prepare tabulations,
in order of seniority, of all decreed water rights and conditional water
rights in their respective divisions. These tabulations are subject to the
approval of the State Engineer. They are to describe each decreed water
right and conditional water right and to set forth the priority and amount
thereof as established by court decrees. The priority lists are separated
so that only those water rights and conditional water rights which take or
will take water from the same source, and thus are in a position to affect
one another, will be on the same priority list.4
This system of tabulations was developed to alleviate much of the diffi-
culty in resulting litigation from uncertainty among owners of water rights
in Colorado. Earlier problems had arisen as a result of transfers of water
rights with no record of the original owner or transfers. However, problems
in maintaining current ownership of water rights have caused disappointment
with the effectiveness of this program.
Water Courts--
As noted above, the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of
1969 established seven water divisions in Colorado. The State Engineer
appoints one Division Engineer for each district. The Supreme Court of
Colorado is also required to designate or redesignate a Water Judge for each
division to hear all water matters in the division (C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-203).
Each judge is directed to appoint such referees as may be needed, and the
referees are required to possess the training and experience to enable them
to render the expert opinions and decisions on water matters. Additionally,
under the Act each Water Division Office has a Water Clerk (C.R.S., Sec. 37-
92-204). His duties are to maintain records related to appropriation,
determination of water rights, plans for augmentation, abandonment of water
rights and conditional water rights, and the records of all proceedings of
the Water Judge.
The referees have the authority and duty to rule upon determinations of
water rights and conditional water rights and the amount and priority. They
rule on changes of water rights, approval of reasonable diligence in the
development of appropriations under conditional water rights, and determina-
tions of abandonment of water rights or conditional water rights. They may
include combination of uses, and points or methods of diversion, any place or
alternate places for storage, and may approve any change of water rights
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-92-301(2)). The referee is an aid to the court and his
4 See Michael D. White, "A Guide to the Examinations of Water Tabula-
tion," 47 Denver Law Journal, 213, 1970, for a short article which could help
to safeguard water rights.
-------
findings, though not absolutely binding on the court, guide the inquiry and
affect the result. Where the district judge has made findings, the power of
the water referee to submit suggested contradictory findings is limited by
the requirement that there be evidence to support the action of the referee.
He may not lawfully make findings on the identical evidence used by the Water
Judge, or contradict and overturn the court's decision without having re-
ceived additional evidence.
Colorado Water Conservation Board—
The Colorado Water Conservation Board was established to aid in the pro-
tection and development of the waters of the State for the benefit of the pre-
sent and future inhabitants of the State (C.R.S., Sec. 37-60-102). The Board
consists of 13 members. The Natural Resources Coordinator, Attorney General,
State Engineer, and Director of said Board are ex officio members. The re-
maining members are appointed by the Governor for terms of three years.
It is the duty of the Board to promote the conservation of the waters of
Colorado, to secure their greatest uti1ization and prevention of floods. In
particular, the Board has the power to foster and encourage irrigation dis-
tricts, water users' associations, conservancy districts, drainage districts,
mutual reservoir and irrigation companies, grazing districts, and any other
agencies which may be formed under Colorado laws. It is to assist these
entities in their financing, but not to lend or pledge the credit or faith
of the State of Colorado or to attempt to make the State responsible for any
of their debts, contracts, obligations, or liabilities thereof. The Board
is to devise and formulate methods, means and plans for bringing about the
greater utilization of the State's waters, to gather data and information
looking toward the greater utilization of the waters, and to cooperate with
the United States and other states for the purpose of bringing about the
greater utilization of the waters of the State of Colorado and the prevention
of flood damage.
The Board can file applications to appropriate water in the name of the
Department of Natural Resources and take all action necessary to acquire or
perfect water rights for projects sponsored by the Board.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board has been directed to make, or cause
to be made, a continuous study of the water resources of the State of Colorado.
It shall also carry on a continuous study of the present and potential uses
thereof to the full extent necessary to a unified and harmonious development
of all waters for beneficial use in Colorado to the fullest extent possible
under the law, including the law created by compacts affecting the use of
said water (C.R.S., Sec. 37-60-115). The State of Colorado has assented to
the provisions of the "Water Resources Planning Act," approved by the U.S.
Congress on July 22, 1965 (C.R.S., Sec. 37-60-118(1)). In this regard, the
Colorado Water Board was directed to conduct and establish a comprehensive
water planning program, as defined in Title I I I of the above act, in conform-
ity with such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Water
Resources Council pursuant to said Act (Colorado Water Conservation Board and
the Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado State Water j>Ian, Phase I—Appraisals of
Present Cond i t ions and Phase II — Legal and Institutional Considerations, and
Phase II I—Plans for Development, Denver, 197*0- A provision of importance
-------
to ground water users, pertaining to both the utilization of tributary and
nontributary ground waters, makes it unlawful to divert or otherwise transport
such waters outside the State of Colorado (C.R.S., Sec. 37~90-136).
State Qua 1i ty Law
Legal aspects of water quality are found in both the traditional "Western
appropriation doctrine" for quantity allocation and statutory water quality
laws. It has been noted by one author that laws developed under the appropri-
ation system may be classified according to two major questions with respect
to water quality (Meyers, 1971). They are:
1. What protection is afforded to senior appropriators against pollution
by upstream junior appropriators?
2. What protection is afforded the junior appropriators against pollution
by upstream senior appropriators?
Colorado has had water quality cases in each of these two groupings. These
cases are discussed below, followed by a summary of the State's water quality
laws.
Rights of Senior Appropriators--
This issue of the rights of senior appropriators against juniors, con-
cerning the pollution problems, was handled in the case of Humphreys Tunnel
and Mining Co. v. Frank (Colo. 524, 105 P. 1093, 1909). In this case, the
plaintiff homesteaded 168 acres, part of which was irrigated by water directed
from Willow Creek with a decreed priority date of July 1895, and 60 acres
(24 ha) of which were natural meadowlands along the stream that grew as a
result of the overflow of the stream. The defendant in 1902 began to operate
a reduction mill to process various minerals. The mill was located approxi-
mately one and a half miles upstream from the plaintiff's headgate. The
plaintiff contended that the continued operation of the mill would result in
the destruction of his land. Based on Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 3176
and additional legislation that "prohibits any person from flooding the prop-
erty of another by water or washing down the tailings of his or their sluice
upon the property of other persons," the court held that the "defendant is
liable in damages for this pollution of the stream which has injured plain-
tiff" (Ibid., p. 1095)- The court held, based on the Suffolk case, which is
discussed later:
...that it was entirely practical and feasible for the defend-
ant, with a comparatively small expenditure and within a few
weeks time, to take care of the tailings and waste material
upon its own premises.
The court also set forth the opinion that the defendant, a junior ap.pro.p-
riator in this case, does not have:
...the absolute right to discharge into the stream the waste
water mixed with hurtful slimes, or absolve it from liability
for resulting injuries to third persons who have lawfully
kk.
-------
acquired prior rights to use the waters thereof for any bene-
ficial purpose, regardless of the fact that the waters used
were not a part of the natural flow of the stream.
The court held that the rights of the plaintiff were subject only to the rights
acquired by prior appropriators and that the plaintiff's rights were such that
he should be allowed "to have the natural waters and all accretions come down
the natural channel undiminished in quality as well as quantity."
Though the above case dealt with physical tailings being washed down-
stream, the rights of the downstream senior appropriator are clear. A much
more recent case dealt with degradation in the quality of water in which there
was no physical debris washed into the stream but the quality of the water was
1 owe red.
In a recent case (Game and Fish Commission v. Farmers Irrigation Co.,
426 P.2d 562, 1957), the defendant Game and Fish Commission had degraded the
water by simply running the stream through a fish hatchery and returning it
to the mainstream. Plaintiffs contended that this activity degraded the
quality of water which was used for domestic purposes. The court held for
the plaintiffs and assessed the damage at the amount which was expended to
obtain a new water source. The case establishes the right to quality as well
as quantity to be delivered to an appropriator but does not establish the
element of quality as part of the right. That is, the owner of the right has
a civil action for taking of his property but this action is only the tradi-
tional adversary action; the State Engineer has no role to play in these
cases.
Rights of Junior Appropriators—
Suffolk Gold Mining and Mil 1 ing Co. v. San Miguel Consol Mining and
Milli'ng'Co. (Colo. App. 407, 48 P.828, 1897) concerned the right of a junior
downstream appropriator against a senior upstream polluter. In this case, the
Suffolk Compound in the 1880's built a stamp mill on Howard's Fork on the San
Miguel River and applied the water to run its equipment and furnish water for
the reduction process. After this use, the water was returned to the stream.
Modifications were made to the mill in 1892 and 1893- In 1890 the San Miguel
Company was organized for the purpose of furnishing power and light to the
mines in the area. The company ran a pipe from Howard's Fork to its plant
to operate a Pelton wheel, which furnished electrical power. After a time,
the San Miguel Company noticed that its pipe and other equipment were being
damaged and concluded that the Suffolk Mill above their point of diversion
was responsible for the damage. The mill refused to correct the cause of the
problem in response to the company's request.
The Suffolk Company claimed that they were "first comers" and as such
had a:
...right to use the stream as they chose, and that the subsequent
comer must take the water flowing down the fork as he found it
when he came, and that he was without right to complain because
of the pollution of the waters, or the method of user (Ibid.,
p. 829).
45
-------
The major issue as seen by the court concerned:
— the title which an appropriator of the waters of this state
acquires by acts duly performed under the constitution and
statutes regulating its acquisition, and the rights which he
does or may acquire with reference to other appropriators
along the line of the stream, though subsequent in time (Ibid.,
p. 830).
The court noted that "an appropriator acquires a right of property in that
which he has appropriated." The court went on to point out, however, that
the title is necessarily subject to many conditions. The result of these
conditions is that the title to this water is not absolute, rather, it is
relative, and that a first comer's rights must be taken as subject to con-
ditions and limitations.
The court, in making its ruling, stated that it would apply only to cases
where part of the water was still open to appropriation. Under this condi-
tion, the court held that:
The title and rights of the prior appropriation company were not
absolute, but conditional, and they were obligated to so use the
water that subsequent locators might, like lower riparian owners,
receive the balance of the stream unpolluted, and fit for the
uses to which they might desire to put it (Ibid ., p. 832).
The court further stated that it was:
...practical for the Suffolk Company to have the full beneficial
use of its title, and at the same time, preserve the waters un-
polluted, so that they may be fully enjoyed by one who subse-
quently takes the water from the stream and is, as we think,
entitled to it free from any pollutions which can be prevented
by reasonable means (Ibid., p. 833).
The court upheld the lower court's decision that, "at a very slight expense,
and at a very slight inconvenience, the Suffolk Company could prevent the in-
jury" (Ibid., p. 833). Thus, the concept of reasonable use was adopted to
deny the right of a senior to pollute the waters to the detriment of down-
stream juniors.
Water Pollution Control Legislation—
Prior to 1966, a water pollution control was in the Health Department
with actual control a matter for local or county health officers. In 1966,
the General Assembly enacted the Colorado Water Pollution Control Act to pre-
vent, abate and control pollution of the State's waters and to establish
stream standards.5 In 1967, the law was amended to permit adoption of
5 For an excellent discussion of water quality control under the 1966
Act, see "A Survey of Colorado Water Law," 47 Denver Law Journal. 226,
1970.
-------
effluent standards to remedy particular discharge problems that exceeded the
stream standards. The Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission was cre-
ated to administer the law but enforcement remained a critical problem.
Similar problems were experienced by the Federal Government under the
control and enforcement procedures called for in the 1965 and 1966 Acts. The
solutions were curative and enforcement was a nightmare. Colorado followed
Federal action in updating its laws and adopted the Water Quality Control Act
of 1973 (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-101 to 25-8-704, 1973; also, Radosevich and Allen,
197^). The Act was passed in Recognition of the fact that pollution of State
waters is a menace to public health, a nuisance to the public, harmful to
wildlife and aquatic life, detrimental to beneficial uses of waters of the
State, and in close interaction with water pollution problems in adjoining
states (C.R.S., SEc. 25-8-102(1)).
The Act was adopted pursuant to the declared public policy to:
...conserve state waters and to protect, maintain, and improve
the quality thereof for public water supplies, for protection
and propagation of wildlife and aquatic life, and for domestic,
agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial
uses (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-102(2)).
Regarding the matters of pollution, general policy further provided:
...that no pollutant be released into any state waters without
first receiving treatment or other corrective action necessary
to protect the legitimate and beneficial uses of such waters
and to prevent, abate and control new or existing water pollu-
tion and to cooperate with other states and the Federal Govern-
ment in achieving these objectives (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-102(2)).
Among the key requirements of the Act are: 1) creation of a Water Quality
Control Commission (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-201+); 2) a plan to classify state
waters (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-203+); 3) standards by which to describe water
quality (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-204+); 4) a method for promulgating water quality
control regulations (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-205+); 5) a method for reviewing the
adequacy of individual sewage disposal systems (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-206+);
6) administrative machinery to supervise loans and grants and to coordinate
with other state bodies (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-207+); 7) a chain of command for
administering and enforcing water quality control programs (C.R.S., Sec. 25*
8-301+]I; 8) a system for administratively proceeding to effect the regulations
of the Commission (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-401); 9) a permit system for the dis-
charge of pollutants (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-501+); and 10) enforcement provisions
(C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-601+).
An important step in state water quality management was taken with the
creation of the Water Quality Control Commission. This Commission consists
of one member of the State Board of Health or its administrative staff; a
member of the Wildlife Commission or its staff; a member of the Water Conserv-
ation Board or its staff; the Executive Director of the Department of Natural
Resources or his designee; and seven citizens of the State who are appointed
47
-------
by the Governor. The law requires that there shall be one of these citizens
from each Congressional district with the remainder from the State at large.
The Commission has responsibility for developing a comprehensive and
effective program for the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution
and for water quality protection throughout the entire State (C.R.S., Sec.
25-8-202(1) to (6)). In connection with this directive, the Commission's
duties include classifying the State's waters, promulgating water quality
standards and passing regulations to implement those standards. They are
also to issue waste discharge permit regulations, supervise sewage treatment
plants — both municipal and individual — review applications for underground
detonations, and review these standards and regulations every three years.
In October of each year, a public hearing shall be held to comment on water
pollution problems within the State.
The Commission is directed to classify all State waters (C.R.S., Sec. 25~
8-203(1) to (2)). The classification is to be by regulation and may use such
relevant characteristics as the extent of pollution existing or the maximum
to be tolerated, as a goal; source of pollution; present uses and the uses for
which the water is to become suitable, as a goal; the character and use of the
land bordering the water; the need to protect the water for human use, wild-
life, and aquatic life; the type of water—i.e., subsurface, lake, stream, or
ditch; its volume, depth, flow, temperature, and stream gradient; and the
variability of such factors on a daily or average basis. It can be seen from
this list that existing pollution is the thrust of concern in the classifica-
tion and that the statute shall be applied to remedy pollution problems. When
setting quality standards, the law requires the Commission to take into account
particular water characteristics relating to pollutants and the regulations to
be promulgated for their control. These pollutants range from toxic substances,
through salinity and alkalinity, to suspended solids, turbidity, and tempera-
ture (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-20^(1) to (3)).
The water quality programs adopted by the Commission shall be adminis-
tered by the Division of Water Quality Control of the State Department of
Health of which the Commission forms a part (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-301). The
Division shall monitor for waste discharges, administer the waste discharge
permit system and carry out the enforcement provisions of the statute—
including seeking criminal prosecution or other judicial relief which may
be appropriate (C.R.S., Sec. 25~8-302(a) through (3)).
A system of requiring a permit has been established for those persons
wishing to discharge pollutants into State waters (C.R.S, Sec. 25-8-501+).
An application for a discharge permit which was made under the Federal Act
is deemed to be an application for a permit under the Colorado statute, how-
ever, even though permits issued under the Federal Act shall be deemed to
have expired as of June 30, 1975-
Applications for permits shall be sent to the Department of Health
which has discretion to issue, deny, modify, suspend, revoke, or otherwise
administer the discharge of pollutants into State waters. The responsibility
for issuing regulations covering permits in line with the general policy of
the Act lies with the Water Quality Control Commission. The permit shall be
-------
issued unless it conflicts with a Federal or State statutory or regulatory
requirement relating to the application or the proposed permit. No discharge
of waste will be allowed if it will conflict with a duly promulgated State,
regional or local land use plan, unless the requirements of such a plan are
met or will be met pursuant to a shcedule of compliance. No permit is re-
quired by the State for agricultural wastes, flows or return flows from
irrigation waters unless so required by Federal act or regulations (C.R.S.,
Sec. 25-8-506(1) and (2)).
Regulations enabling Colorado to participate in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) were approved by the Water Quality Con-
trol Commission on August 20, 1974. The regulations establish two state per-
mit programs—one to control industrial and municipal discharges and another
to control agricultural discharges in line with Federal guidelines for par-
ticipation in NPDES. Companion regulations approved by the Commission estab-
lished effluent limitations applicable to all waste water discharge except
storm runoff and agricultural discharges.
Any person or agency of the Federal or State governments may apply to
the Division to investigate and take action upon any suspected or alleged
violation of any provision of the Act or any order, regulation or permit
issued pursuant thereto. When notice has been given of an alleged violation,
such notice shall be conveyed to the alleged violator. This notice shall
state the provision alleged as violated, the facts constituting the alleged
violation, and may include the nature of corrective action contemplated.
The Department of Health has several options open to it for remedying a
violation. These include suspension, modification, or revocation of the per-
mit (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-604); cease and desist orders (C.R.S, Sec. 25-8-605);
and clean-up orders (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-606) which may be followed by a re-
straining order or injunction (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-607) issued by the District
Court in a suit instituted by the District Attorney or Attorney General. The
restraining order or injunction is sought if the cease and desist order or
clean-up order is ignored. In addition to the above, civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per day are permitted (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-608), as well as criminal
fines (C.R.S., Sec. 25-8-609) for violation of a permit, cease and desist
order, or clean-up order. Tampering with a monitoring device is punishable
by a fine of $10,000, six months in the county jail, or both (C.R.S., Sec.
25-8-610). '
Local Water Entities
Generally, the early Western water rights acquired considerable value as
development and diversions took place. The philosophy of the prior appropri-
ation doctrine was constantly encouraged into use in the late 1800's to 1950's
with Federal policies and programs designed to settle the West and reclaim
lands to agriculture.
Companies—
Where it was no longer possible or desirable for individuals to construct
and operate their own diversion and delivery works, they began to form cooper-
ative relationships which evolved into several district categories of private
-------
and quasirpublic companies. The most common in Colorado is the mutual irriga-
tion company. Mutual "water companies" are private organizations, which may
be incorporated or unincorporated, organized for the express purpose of
furnishing water to stockholders or to persons with vested rights in water
(Farmers Water Development Co. v. Barrett. 151 Colo. 140, 376 P.2d 693, 1963).
In 1969, there were a total of 1,752 mutual companies of which only 546 were
incorporated (1969 Census of Agriculture, Vol. IV), These companies are non-
profit entities that can levy assessments for operation and maintenance, but
not charge for the water itself (Zoller v. Mail Creek Ditch Co., 498 P.2d
1169, Colo. App. 1972). The water rights held by the company are owned by the
shareholders (Jacobucci v. Dist. Ct. in and for County of Jefferson, 541 P.2d
667, Colo. 1975T!A mutual company can transfer, sell or Tease the rights to
water that it holds, but the shareholders can place restrictions on water
deliveries in the company's by-laws (Model Land and Irr. Co. v. Madsen, 87
Colo. 166, 285 P.1100, 1930).
In many areas throughout Colorado, "carrier companies" are formed to
deliver water from the "mutual company" to water users not within the reach of
the mutual's delivery system. These companies assess their members' fees for
operation and maintenance and may or may not be organized for profit. Often,
ownership of shares in a carrier company is restricted to landowners adjacent
to thei r di tches.
The second major water company is the commercial entity, organized for
profit, and either owning its own water rights or delivering water for other
water right holders. These entities may be classified as a public utility and
subject to a higher degree of care and trust in the delivery of water to con-
sumers (Putnam Ditch Co. v. Bijou Irr. Co., 108 Colo. 124, 114 P.2d 284, Colo.
1941).
Irrigation districts are quasi- and public organizations, formed to amass
sufficient capital to construct and operate irrigation systems on a larger
geographical basis than covered by irrigation companies. The distinctive
feature of the district is its ability to sell bonds and levy ad valorem prop-
erty taxes to raise the monies necessary for project construction and repay-
ment. Originating as a formalized concept in California with the Wright Act
of 1887, the irrigation district idea was soon adopted by the other 16 West-
ern states as a means to improve agricultural production through development
of water use potentials (Clark, 1967).
The success of this approach and the emergence of the Federal reclamation
activities in the West led Colorado to adopt the Irrigation District Law of
1905 (C.R.S., Sec. 37-41-101 to 160). This Law states that a majority of
landowners may petition to form a district to provide irrigation and drainage
to such lands and may also cooperate with the Federal Government for construc-
tion, operation and maintenance of irrigation works. The petition is filed,
with the County Commissioners and, after published notice and a hearing, the
district can be formed if a majority of landowners approve. Once organized,
the district can acquire water, water rights and necessary properties to
carry out its purposes; it can sell bonds and levy assessments against irri-
gated lands in the district boundaries and allocate water during periods of
drought in the best interest of all parties.
50
-------
The Irrigation District Law of 1921 was enacted to provide for the reclam-
ation of lands and development of new irrigation systems (C.R.S., Sec. 37~42-
101 to 160). A petition from a majority of landowners is submitted to the
County Commissioners. The Commissioners transmit the proposal to the State
Engineer who must prepare a feasibility study and make his recommendation to
the Commissioners. If approved, the Board of Directors is elected. The dis-
trict has broad powers to acquire properties and operate facilities but must
adopt a definite plan to carry out the purposes of the district. It also has
authority to lease surplus waters (C.R.S., Sec. 37-42-113, 11? and 135,
respectively).
In 1935, an act was passed which expanded and clarified the powers and
duties of irrigation districts (C.R.S., Sec. 37-43-101 to 189). This law
provides, among other rights, that a district can undertake drainage activi-
ties, have preferred rights and control seepage and waste waters within dis-
trict boundaries, and refuse water delivery to land upon which assessments
are delinquent (C.R.S., Sec. 37-43-122,123 and 143, respectively).
Colorado laws contain two specific articles relating to formation of
conservancy districts. The first—set out in Title 37, Article 1 and en-
titled the Conservancy Law of Colorado—authorizes the formation of districts
to prevent the loss of life and properties from floods and other uncontroll-
able waters. Districts can be organized for any of the following purposes:
1) preventing floods; 2) regulation of stream channels or stream flows;
3) diverting, controlling, or eliminating water courses; 4) protection of
public or private property from inundation (this is accompanied by broad
powers to change the course of any stream by any means); and 5) conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water for agricultural, municipal
and industrial uses when desirable (C.R.S., Sec. 37-2-101(2)).
Once the district is organized and the Board of Directors has been
appointed by the court, the Directors are authorized to alter, straighten,
widen, deepen, or change the course of any water or water course. They may
fill any abandoned water courses and may construct ditches, canals, sewers,
dikes, or any other works deemed necessary to protect, operate, or maintain
the works in or out of said district. They are also given broad powers to
construct or renovate bridges, highways and rights-of-way or to condemn and
purchase land for these purposes. They may not, however, regulate or admin-
ister water rights nor damage on take such rights without just compensation
(C.R.S., Sec. 37-3-103 (1) and (2)).
The second type of conservancy district is authorized under the Water
Conservancy Act of 1937 (C.R.S., Sec. 37-45-101 to 152). The need arose to
provide for the formation of an irrigation-oriented water entity, at a level
higher than the irrigation district, to plan and construct water projects
encompassing a greater area with a basin and to provide a tax base including
all lands within their boundaries, not just the irrigated lands. The water
conservancy district concept was adapted to provide for the conservation of
water use in Colorado for the direct and indirect benefit of the public,
industries, municipalities, and irrigation water users by providing adequate
and timely water supplies and stabilizing the flow of streams. Further, the
districts are to strive for the highest duty of water allocated under compact
51
-------
and control or insure the beneficial use of all unappropriated water to a
direct or supplemental use by all beneficial users (C.R.S., 37-45-101).
Grand Valley Organizations--
The present Grand Valley Canal system comprising approximately 100 miles
of canals and subcanals is the result of a consolidation of the Grand River
Ditch Company, Grand Valley Canal Company, Mesa County Ditch Company, Pioneer
Extension Ditch Company, and the Independent Ranchmen's Ditch Association.
The construction of what is now the main line Grand Valley Canal probably
began in 1882 since the original priority is dated August 22, 1882, although
A.J. McCune who was the engineer for the Grand River Ditch Company filed a
statement with the clerk and recorder of Mesa County, Colorado, on April 5>
1883 that construction commenced January 10, 1883. At this time, the ditch
was owned by Matt Arch, E.S. Oldham, William Oldham, John Biggies, and William
Cline who planned for a capacity of about 786 cfs. However, the early devel-
opment times were uncertain and the company, like many others, was facing
financial trouble and was sold to the Traveler's Insurance Company, which
also acquired title to the other four companies now making up the system.
On January 29, 1894, the Grand Valley Irrigation Company was incorporated
when the Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State's
Office and the title was acquired from the insurance company.
The water rights of an agricultural area in the Western United States
often are complex due to the nature of system evolution necessary to develop
an area. In general, such is the case in the Grand Valley area. Upon the
organization of the company, an application was made for an adjudication of
its water rights from the Colorado River. The application for the Grand
Valley Canal was awarded a decree of 520.81 cfs (15 cu.m/sec), July 27, 1912,
with the priority date of August 22, 1882, which was priority number 1 on the
Colorado River. The hearings which lead to the adjudication established an
irrigated acreage of 30-35 thousand acres, with a probable 20 percent system
loss rate. On July 25, 1914, the First Enlargement of the Grand Valley Canal
was awarded priority number 358 and dated July 23, 1914 for 195-33 cfs (5-53
cms), of which 75-86 cfs (2.15 cms) is conditional upon the addition of
4,661.25 acres (1,887-84 ha) to the system.
Although the original decree was based on an estimated acreage of 30-
35,000 acres (12,150-14,175 ha), later investigation revealed the acreage was
slightly less than 40,000 acres (16,200 ha), plus the additional 4,661.25
acres (1,887.81 ha) not yet developed, for a total of about 44,000 acres
(17,820 ha). If the usual 200-day irrigation season is experienced, this
water right amounts to approximately 5-76 acre-feet per acre (1.76 ha-m/ha),
from which an estimated 20 percent loss rate of 1.05 acre-feet per acre
(0.32 ha-m/ha) leaves about 4.71 acre-feet per acre (1.44 ha-m/ha) for
i rrigat ion.
The company is organized in the corporation format. The division of
water among the irrigators is on the basis of shares of the capital stock of
the company comprising a total of 48,000 shares. Thus, an individual holding
one share of stock would be entitled to 4.23 acre-feet (0.52 ha-m) of water
at his turnout. It should be noted that this figure does not include the loss
rates of the company. In addition, these figures do not include the 75.86 cfs
52
-------
(2.15 cms) of conditional water. In 1971, the water assessment was $15.00 for
the first share and $2.40 for each additional share. Occasionally, some
assessments cannot be paid, in which case a period is given for the irrigator
to reclaim the water share, after which grace period the share is sold at
auction.
The Grand Valley project which now serves water to four irrigation
companies — the Grand Valley Water Users Association, the Orchard Mesa Irriga-
tion District, Palisade Irrigation District (Price Ditch), and the Mesa County
Irrigation District (Stub Ditch)--is the result of considerable effort and a
long series of disappointments. Before describing in detail the companies
themselves, it is interesting to describe briefly the history of development
leading to the present day conditions.
When the Ute Indians moved out of the Valley and the first benefits of
irrigation were being realized, the opportunity for further development of
irrigation above and beyond the Grand Valley could be seen. The fruit industry
prospered almost from the time early settlers experimented with deciduous fruit
culture that eventually gave the Valley a reputation as a high quality orchard
locality. However, neither the capital nor the authorization to develop addi-
tional lands was available until 1902 when the Federal Reclamation Act was
passed. Although the Act was passed, no provision for operation was made.
The Bureau of Public Surveys was charged with the responsibility to investi-
gate locations which could be developed. Early in September, 1902, J.H. Mathis
arrived in Grand Junction with a small party of engineers to survey the Grand
Valley for its feasibility as an experimental reclamation project.
When the investigation was almost completed, an event occurred which is
probably the worst disaster to occur in the Valley. T.C. Henry, unscrupulous
promoter from Denver, arrived on the scene and convinced local people he could
finance, build and operate a system far better than could the government. By
a majority of two votes, the local citizens accepted the proposal, causing
the government to withdraw, even though the engineers had found Grand Valley
to be a feasible location for a reclamation project.
In 1904, T.C. Henry was forced to admit that he had neither a plan nor a
prospect for action in the Grand Valley. Fortunately, the efforts of the
people were sufficient to revive government interest in the potential project.
In June, 1907, James R. Garfield', Secretary of the Interior, officially
approved the project and allocated $150,880 to begin the permanent survey of
the project. The project at this point entailed what is now known as the
Government Highline Canal and its construction was increasingly important
to the local people because of the continued success agriculture had been
enjoying. In fact, the future of the fruit industrylooked so promising that
one six-acre peach orchard sold for $24,000 or $4,000 per acre ($59,259-9,877
per ha).
The Grand Valley was not yet through with T.C. Henry. In 1907 he con-
tacted the Magenheimer Brothers of Chicago who had been successful in dredging
operations along Lake Michigan. Since the exploitation of irrigation projects
was both a popular and a successful business, they took up the line. Together
with four local promoters, they organized a district (later to become the
53
-------
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District) covering about 10,000 acres (4,050 ha) on
the south side of the river. In addition, plans were being made by the
Magenheimers to take over the remainder of the government project (Grand
Valley Water Users Association).
The increasing demand for the project prompted the local people in the
Association to submit a proposal to provide $125,000 if the government would
match this amount for starting construction. In October 1908, Secretary
Garfield accepted the challenge and approved the proposal. Local pledges in
the form of work allocations were soon called upon and construction began;
but at four o'clock on May k, 1909, the same day work started, the new Secre-
tary of the Interior, R.A. Ballenger, suspended construction with no reason
stated. Ballenger had been asked by Senator Henry M. Teller from Denver to
abandon the project because private capital was available for the work and in
such cases the government should not interfere. This information had been
given the Senator by a prominent law firm in Denver which was representing
the Magenheimer-Henry combination. The local people sent representatives to
Washington to investigate the work stoppage and just happened to visit Senator
Teller, who then told them what had happened. Unfortunately, a great deal of
effort by numerous individuals failed to sway Ballenger, who still would not
give reason for his attitude. In 1911, Ballenger resigned and was succeeded
by Walter L. Fisher, who finally gave his approval. And, on October 23, 1912,
work was again initiated. Thus, the Association escaped falling into the
hands of the Magenheimers.
The construction of the Orchard Mesa system was begun by placing a $163
per acre ($402 per ha) cost on the 10,000 acres (4,050 ha) of land with six
percent interest bearing bonds and warrants. The system was so poorly con-
structed that portions failed before the system was completed. This was all
made possible because the Magenheimers had gained control of the Board of
Directors, and although the idea was met with bitter opposition by local
people, the election carried. From that time on, T.C. Henry and the
Magenheimers embezzled the farmers and the district to the point of final
collapse. Phony construction companies, phony construction and phony per-
sonnel finally brought the district near financial collapse. Finally, an
earnest plea was made to the government that rehabilitation of the Orchard
Mesa system be included among construction efforts with the Association. The
plea was heeded and the system saved, a cost which is still being repaid.
The efforts of T.C. Henry and the Magenheimer brothers are not unlike
many that have occurred throughout the West. Many people were ruined by their
actions and the memory is still very real. It is almost miraculous that the
irrigation companies in the Grand Valley and many other areas are still
operating. With the abbreviated history surrounding the Grand Valley Project,
the operation and water rights of the four-canal system may be better
understood.
Grand Valley Water Users Association—The Grand Valley Water Users
Association was incorporated February 7, 1945. It operates the Government
Highline Canal which serves about 44,416 acres of irrigable land. In addi-
tion, the Association diverts 800 cfs during the nonirrigation season for
power development through a siphon across the Colorado River shortly below
-------
the main diversion. During the irrigation season, 400 cfs is used for power
development, with the remaining 400 cfs through the irrigation pumps. The
power generated with this water is sold to the Public Service Company of
Colorado to help pay the debt on the original project.
The operation of the Grand Valley Water Users Association is on a corp-
oration basis, and although stock is registered in the County Recorder's
Office, none has ever been issued. The Bureau of Reclamation classified the
land into one of five categories: Class 1--good orchard; Class 1A~young
orchard; Class 2—good agricultural lands; Class 3—fair agricultural lands;
and Class 4--poor agricultural lands. On the basis of this classification,
a farmer can sign up for his irrigable acreage which allows him at the pre-
sent time 4 acre-feet per acre (1.22 ha-m/ha), above which (if the supply is
available) he is charged for the excess. There are restrictions on the time
rate of delivery, however, which are imposed when the supply is limited.
This restriction is usually a limit of 1 cfs per 40 acres (0.03 cms per 16.2
ha), and sometimes as low as 0.75 cfs per 40 irrigable acres (0.02 cms per
16.2 irrigable ha); this practice has, in the past, been necessary only
during the peak use months of the summer. During the fall and spring, water
is usually delivered on a demand basis. It should be further noted that al-
though a farmer signs up for a fixed area of irrigable acreage, he may apply
the water as he wishes on his property. In addition, when the property is
sold he is allowed only to sell water for the irrigable acreage being sold,
so in effect the water is tied to the land and nonshareholders or outside
acreage cannot obtain Association water.
The price of water in the Association is based on an assessment of the
irrigable acreage on the following basis:
In 1971, for example, $1.40/acre ($3.46/ha) repayment of government land;
$4.00/acre ($9.88/ha) for operation & maintenance);
$1.20/acre-foot ($9-73/ha-m) of excess used over
4 acre-feet/acre (1.22 ha-m/ha) allocated.
The minimum assessment is $20 per farm. In 1971, there were approximately
24,000 acres (9,720 ha) assessed as compared with the 25,000 irrigable acres
(10,125 irrigable ha).
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District—The Orchard Mesa Division of the Grand
Valley Project was formed by request of the people of the Orchard Mesa Irri-
gation District when the prior operation was facing bankruptcy. The district
was organized under the 1905 Colorado Statute covering irrigation districts,
which was later revised to the 1921 Colorado Law.
The operation of the district in many ways is similar to the Association
in that the water duty and land classification are the same. The Orchard
Mesa Irrigation District is now provided water through a siphon diversion
from the Government Highline Canal into the Orchard Mesa Power Canal. During
the irrigation season, one half of the 800 cfs (226 cms) in the canal is
diverted through the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District pumps which lift 80 cfs
40 feet (2.26 cms 12.19 m) into the Orchard Mesa #2 Canal and 60 cfs 130 feet
(1.7 cms 39.62 rr) into the Orchard Mesa #1 Canal.
55
-------
The price pf using water in the District is based again on the land
classification. However, the procedure is similar to the assessment technique
used by county government. The Board of Directors for the Distreet prepare a
budget consisting of repayment for irrigation system rehabilitation by the
government, operation and maintenance, etc. Then,)the budget is approved by
the Tax Commission of Colorado and the State Auditor. The valuation of land
is then checked with the County Assessor, from which a mill levy is set to
obtain the money. In 1971, the assessed acreage was 9,199 acres, which was
assessed on the following basis:
Class 1 $11.05/acre ($2?.28/ha)
Class 1A $ 8.71/acre ($21.51/ha)
Class 2 $ 8.71/acre ($21.51/ha)
Class 3 $ 7-15/acre ($17-65/ha)
Class 4 $ 5.85/acre ($l4.44/ha)
Of the total revenue collected at the rate of 130 mills, 43 goes to repay the
government and 87 for operation and maintenance.
Palisade Irrigation District—The Palisade Irrigation District, with
essentially the same organizational format as the Orchard Mesa Irrigation
District, operates the Price Ditch. This ditch is supplied 66-68 cfs (1.87-
1.92 cms) through a turbine pump just off the Government Highline Canal and
it exits through Tunnel No. 3. An additional 22-24 cfs (0.62-0.68 cms) is
delivered through turnouts in the Highline Canal.
Both the Palisade Irrigation District and the Mesa County Irrigation
District were organized independently of the government project. Their his-
tory is somewhat unknown to the writers, but they consolidated their systems
with the Highline Canal when it was built, presumably to streamline their
operation.
Mesa County Irrigation District—The Mesa County Irrigation District,
which operates the Stub Ditch, has an irrigation water right of 40 cfs (1.13
cms). The operation and organization of this district is similar to the pre-
vious five districts mentioned. At the turbine pump serving the Price Ditch,
15 cfs (0.42 cms) is pumped into the Stub Ditch, with the remaining 25 cfs
(0.71 cms) being diverted directly from the Highline Canal to agricultural
lands within the boundaries of the Mesa County Irrigation District.
Red lands Water and Power Company—The Red lands Water and Power Company,
a mutual ditch company, irrigates about 3,000 acres (1,215 ha) southwest of
Grand Junction and south of the Colorado River. The water supply is diverted
from the Gunnison River in a canal carrying 670 cfs (18.96 cms). Six cfs
(0.17 cms) is used for irrigation of lands below the power canal, 610 cfs
(17.26 cms) for power generation and 54 cfs (1.53 cms) is pumped to an initial
height of 127 feet (38.71 m) for irrigation. Small areas in the project are
served by higher lifts, the highest being at about 300 feet (91.44 m). Elec-
tricity in excess of pumping needs is sold to project settlers and to the
Public Service Company.
Salinity Control Organizations—
The prospect of obtaining federal money for canal and lateral lining as
a first step in salinity control in the late 1960's led to the organization
56
-------
of the Grand Valley Water Purification Project, Inc. (GVWPP). This was a
consortium of local irrigation companies. In January, 1972, a new organiza-
tion—"Grand Valley Canal Systems, Inc."—was formed. This organization has
membership on the Board of Directors from the Grand Valley Irrigation Company,
Mesa County Irrigation Districts, Palisade Irrigation District, Redlands
Water and Power Company, and Fruita Canal and Land Company. The principal
purpose of this entity is:
To promote the efficient and proper use of irrigation water in
the Grand Valley area of Mesa County, Colorado; to protect the
quality and quantity of water available for irrigation purposes
in said Grand Valley; to promote a cooperative effort between
companies and districts distributing irrigation water through
the said Grand Valley area of Mesa County, Colorado; and to do
and perform all things deemed beneficial for the interest of the
individual users and distributors of irrigation water in said
area.
Compacts
Six major rivers and their tributaries have their origins in Colorado,
providing water to eight surrounding states and Mexico. Due to this regional
dependence on the waters of rivers originating in Colorado, nine separate com-
pacts, have been established between Colorado and various other states. By
means of these compacts, former water problems of long duration between the
states have been largely resolved. But, three such conflicts were eventually
settled through actions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this
project area, our concern is only with the Colorado River and the two com-
pacts negotiated by the basin states.
Colorado River Compact—
The Colorado River Compact—signed November 2k, 1972 in Santa Fe, New
Mexico—was approved by the Colorado General Assembly in accordance with the
provisions of an act approved April 2, 1921. The signatory states—Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—agreed to appor-
tion the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet
(92^,750 ha-m) of water per annum. The purpose of the compact was:
...to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of
the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to estab-
lish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of
water; to promote interstate community; to remove causes of
present and future controversies; and to secure the expedi-
tious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado
River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of
life and property from floods (C.R.S., Sec. 37~62-101,
Article 1).
This compact defines the Colorado River Basin as including all of the
drainage area of the Colorado River system and all other territory within the
United States 'of America to which the waters of the system are beneficially
applied. The Upper Basin refers to those parts of Arizona, Colorado, New
57
-------
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into
the Colorado River system above Lee's Ferry, also all parts of said states
located without and drainage area of Colorado River system which are now or
shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the system
above Lee's Ferry. The Lower Basin includes the parts of Arizona, California,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into
the Colorado River system below Lee's Ferry. The Lower Basin has been allowed
to increase its beneficial consumptive use of the waters by one million acre-
feet per annum.
The Upper Basin agreed not to deplete the flow below 7,500,000 ac.ft.
(924,750 ha-m) for any period of ten consecutive years. In addition, the
Upper Basin agreed not to withhold water, and the Lower Basin agreed not to
require delivery of water, which could not be used for domestic and agricul-
tural uses. The use of the waters of the river for navigation were held to
be subservient to the uses of such waters for domestic, agricultural and
power purposes.
The Upper Colorado River Compact was established by the states of Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona in 19^*8 to provide for the equitable
division of the water of the Colorado River originally apportioned to the
Upper Basin. The purposes of the Act are:
...to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of
the use of the waters of the Colorado River system, the use of
which was apportioned in perpetuity to the upper basin by the
Colorado River Compact; to establish the obligations of each
state of the upper division with respect to the deliveries of
water required to be made at Lee's Ferry by the Colorado
River Compact; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes
of present and future controversies; to secure the expeditious
agricultural and industrial development of the upper basin;
the storage of water, and to protect life and property from
floods.
The phrase "states of the upper division" includes the states of Colo-
rado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The phrase "states of the lower
division" includes Arizona, California and Nevada. The Compact states in
part:
The term upper basin means those parts of the states of Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which
waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system above
Lee's Ferry, and also all parts of said states located without
the drainage area of the Colorado River system which are now
or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted
from the Colorado River system above Lee's Ferry.
The term lower basin means those parts of the states of
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and
from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River
system below Lee's Ferry, and also all parts of said states
58
-------
located without the drainage area of the Colorado River system
which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by
waters diverted from the Colorado River system below Lee's
Ferry (C.R.S., Sec. 37-62-101, Article 11 (f) and (g)).
The waters of the Upper Colorado River Compact were to be divided as
follows:
A. To the state of Arizona the consumptive of 50,000
acre-feet (6,165 ha-m) of water per annum.
B. To the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming,
respectively, the consumptive use per annum of the quant-
ities resulting from the application of the following
percentages to the total quantity of consumptive use per
annum appropriated in perpetuity to and available for use
each year by upper basin under the Colorado River Compact
and remaining after the deduction of the use, not to
exceed 50,000 acre-feet per annum, made in the state of
Arizona.
State of Colorado. .... 51-75 percent
State of New Mexico 11.25 percent
State of Utah 23-00 percent
State of Wyoming 1^.00 percent
1. The apportionment made to the respective states by
paragraph (a) of this article is based upon, and
shall be applied in conformity with, the following
principles and each of them:
a. the apportionment is of any and all man-made
depletions;
b. beneficial use is the basis, the measure and
the limit of the right to use;
c. no state shall exceed the apportioned use in
any water year when the effect of such excess
use, as determined by the commission, is tb
deprive another signatory state of its appor-
tioned use duringjthe water year...(C.R.S.,
Sec. 37-62-101, Article III).
Article IV held that:
If any state or states of the upper division, in the ten years
immediately preceding the water year in which curtailment is
necessary, shall have consumptively used more water than it was
or they were, as the case may be, entitled to use under the
apportionment made by Article I I I of this compact, such state
or states shall be required to supply at Lee's Ferry a quantity
of water equal to its, or the aggregate of their, overdraft or
the proportionate part of such overdraft, as may be necessary to
assure compliance with Article I I I of the Colorado River Compact,
before demand Is made on any other state of the upper division.
59
-------
SUMMARY
It is readily apparent that water users in Colorado are not only sub-
jected to a host of physical and economic factors, affecting their decision
to utilize their time and other resources, but that they must also be cogni-
zant of the mechanisms that permit the use of the valuable water resources
in their operation. Often, these legal characteristics of water use in
Colorado are the determining factor in the conduct of the water user. Further,
as time goes on, the greater pressure is placed on the agricultural sector
to become more efficient, farmers will have to become more knowledgeable of
the law. Many problems and their causes faced by these water users in the
Grand Junction area are discussed in the next two sections.
60
-------
SECTION 5
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The reconvened Seventh Session of the "Conference in the Matter of Pollu-
tion of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and Its Tributaries," with
representatives from the seven basin states and the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972), adopted the following
recommendation on April 27, 1972 in Denver:
A salinity policy be adopted for the Colorado River system that
would have as its objective the maintenance of salinity concen-
trations at or below levels presently found in the lower main
stem. In implementing the salinity policy objective for the
Colorado River system, the salinity problem must be treated as
a basin-wide problem that needs to be solved to maintain Lower
Basin water salinity at or below present levels while the Upper
Basin continues to develop its compact-apportioned waters.
Subsequent to this declaration, the Federal Government adopted the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93~320) on June 2k, 1974 with
the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining salinity control works
on the lower Colorado River for users in the United States and Mexico (Hyatt,
1970). This action was followed by a policy declaration of the Environmental
Protection Agency approved December 18, 1974 for sal ini ty control on the Colorado
that:
It shall be the policy that the flow weighted average annual
salinity in the lower main stem of the Colorado River system be
maintained at or below the average value found during 1972. To
carry out this policy, water quality standards for salinity and
a plan of implementation for salinity control shall be developed
and implemented in accordance with the principles of the paragraph
below.
The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming are required to adopt and submit for approval
to the Environmental Protection Agency on or before October 18,
1975:
(1) Adopted water quality standards for salinity including
numeric criteria consistent with the policy stated above
for appropriate points in the Colorado River System.
61
-------
(2) A plan to achieve compliance with these standards as
expeditiously as practicable providing that:
(i) The plan shall identify State and Federal regulatory
authorities and programs necessary to achieve compli-
ance with the plan.
(ii) The salinity problem shall be treated as a basinwide
problem that needs to be solved in order to maintain
lower main stem salinity at or below 1972 levels
while the Basin states continue to develop their
compact apportioned waters.
(iii) The goal of the plan shall be to achieve compliance
with the adopted standards by July 1, 1983. The date
of compliance with the adopted standards shall take
into account the necessity for Federal salinity control
actions set forth in the plan. Abatement measures with-
in the control of the States shall be implemented as
soon as practicable.
(iv) Salinity levels in the lower main stem may temporarily
increase above the 1972 levels if control measures to
offset the increases are included in the control plan.
However, compliance with 1972 levels shall be a primary
cons I deration.
(v) The feasibility of establishing an interstate institu-
tion for salinity management shall be evaluated.
Based upon this position and policy, the strategy for any type of devel-
opment should require maintaining a net salt balance reaching the lower stem
(below Hoover Dam) of the Colorado River. Thus, any development which would
create an increased salinity concentration at Hoover Dam should be offset by
a corresponding decrease in salinity somewhere else in the system.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Unfortunately, during a period of great concern for the problem of salin-
ity in the Colorado River Basin, the impact of individual salinity sources is
encompassed within the limits of measurement accuracy. In the Grand Valley
area, the contributions from the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers, as well as the
salt contributed by the area, is less than five percent of the mean annual
flow. This allows some to suggest the Valley salt contributions and corres-
ponding impacts of salinity control alternatives remain in question. Some
insist that general data deficiencies preclude meaningful formulation of plans
for local improvement or for justifying one project over another. A look at
what can be said with existing data may be helpful.
There are two methods for establishing the impact an area has on water
and salt flows. The first is the input-output model alluded to above, and the
second is hydro-salinity modeling of the internal water uses.
62
-------
Inp ut-0utput Ana 1ys i s
Inflows to the Grand Valley occur as flows in the Colorado River, Gunni-
son River and precipitation. In addition, a small quantity of water is
imported for domestic and industrial purposes, and a possibility exists that
precipitation on the watershed adjacent to the Valley may contribute via
diffuse ground water inflows. Neither of these latter flows are deemed signi-
ficant, especially the inflow from surrounding lands because of the low annual
precipitation (8-10 inches (20-25 cm)) and high evaporation demands (40-45
inches (102-114 cm)).
As a means of better identification, data for the 1968 water year (which
is representative of long-term mean annual flows) from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and U.S. Weather Bureau can be utilized. Inflows passing the
USGS gaging stations "Colorado River near Cameo" (2,413,000 acre-feet (297,523
ha-m), "Plateau Creek near Cameo" (112,000 acre-feet (13,810 ha-m); and
"Gunnison River near Grand Junction" (1,444,000 acre-feet (178,045 ha-m))
totaled 3,968,000 acre-feet (489,254 ha-m) carrying an estimated salt load
of 3,070,500 tons (3,377,550 metric tons). The outflows passing the station
"Colorado River at Colo-Utah State Line" totaled 3,722,000 acre-feet
(458,923 ha-m) and approximately 3,771,000 tons (4,148,100 metric tons) of
salt. These figures represent either published data or interpolations there-
of. It should be noted that the state line station collects only limited
quality data.
A comparison of the inflows and outflows indicates that 246,000 acre-
feet (30,332 ha-m) of water were depleted from the system and 701,000 tons
(771,100 metric tons) of salt added. Precipitation records indicate that
approximately 75,000 acre-feet (9,248 ha-m) fell on the land encompassed by
the irrigated boundaries of which it is estimated that 25,000 acre-feet
(3,083 ha-m) could be classed as "effective on the irrigated acreages." These
estimates are congruent with similar computations presented by lorns, et al.
(1965), Hyatt (1970), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1971).
Another check on these numbers can be made from land use data collected
by Walker and Skogerboe (1971) which is summarized in Figure 11. A somewhat
more definite breakdown is presented in Table 6. Westesen (1974) estimated
that the consumptive use based on the pan evaporation data from the U.S.
Weather Bureau and calculations us'ing the Modified Jensen-Haise method
amounted to about 295,000 acre-feet (36,374 ha-m) annually, including almost
25,000 acre-feet (3,083 ha-m) of effective precipitation on other vegetative
uses. Thus, the inflow-outflow data for this particular year regarding water
flow is acceptable. An examination of the salt flows will be noted for com-
parison in the following paragraphs.
Hydro-Sal inity Budgeting
The second approach to establishing the effects of water use in the Grand
Valley is to model the complex interrelationships associated with irrigation
and drainage. Several parameters are added to the analysis to account for
the various flows which take place.
63
-------
120
100
CO
03
O
O
O
O
O
o>
01
O
0>
O
0)
CO
c
O
80
60
40
20
Sugar Beets
Orchards
Grain
Idle
Pasture
Corn
Alfalfa
Irrigable
Croplands
•Miscellaneous
Industrial
Municipal
Municipal-
Industrial
Open Water
Surfaces
Phreatophytes
Barren
Soil
Phreatophytes
and
Barren Soil
Open Water
Municipal -
Industrial
Phreatophytes
and
Barren Soil
Irrigable
Croplands
Total
-•50
40
a>
30 2
O
d)
O
O
O
20
a>
•o
c
o
10
Figure 11. Agricultural land use in the Grand Valley
(Skogerboe and Walker, 1972).
-------
TABLE 6. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN THE GRAND VALLEY
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1970).
Land Use
1 rrigated
Idle
Dwelling and Premises
Open Water
Phreatophyte
Natural Terrain
TOTAL*
Acreage
60,8Mt
9,706
10,678
1,699
15,17*
16,607
114,708
Hectares
2A,642
3,931
4,325
688
6,145
6,726
Percent
of Total
53-0
8.5
9.3
1-3
13.2
14.5
100.0
* Roads and railways have been omitted.
The first hydrologic segment is the delineation of the canal diversions.
As the water is diverted from the rivers into the canals and ditches, a cer-
tain portion of the flow seeps or evaporates from the conveyance surfaces,
while still another fraction is spilled into wasteways as a means of regulat-
ing an extensive lateral system leading to the fields. It is important in
this type of analysis that each flow path be defined, because each results in
a different salinity effect. For example, the evaporative losses concentrate
the salts in the remaining flows, whereas the seepage enters the saline
ground water basin and results in salt pickup.
Lateral diversions eventually become seepage, field tailwater, root zone
additions, or evaporation. In a similar manner, the root zone additions re-
sult in cropland consumptive use or deep percolation. When deep percolation
is combined with seepage losses, a ground water flow segment is begun which
results in the severe salt loadings common in the Valley. A great deal of
the ground water is consumed by water-loving phreatophytes abundant in the
area and some of the flows are intercepted by the open-ditch drainage system.
A substantial amount returns to the rivers through aquifers making precise
measurement difficult.
Westensen (1974) examined the 1968 water year in some detail and com-
bined many of the principles discussed by Walker (1970) into an accounting of
the flows derived for irrigation in the Grand Valley. Walker's results are
shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9, presenting a valley-wide water budget, distribu-
tion of canal diversions and a salt budget.
Interpretation^ of Data
The budgets contained in Tables 7, 8 and 9 include some important insights
to the water use practices in the Grand Valley. It has generally been the
practice to state the results of budgeting procedures in terms of efficiencies,
in order to extend the conclusions to other areas. Most notable, efficiencies
such as conveyance efficiency, irrigation efficiency, etc., are commonly
found in the literature. Since a great deal of variation can be found in the
65
-------
TABLE 7. GRAND VALLEY WATER BUDGET FOR 1968 WATER YEAR
(Skogerboe and Walker, 1972).
Budget I tern Acre-Feet Ha-m
Surface Inflows
Colorado River near Cameo, Colorado 2,413,000 297,523
Plateau Creek near Cameo, Colorado 112,000 13,810
Gunnison River near Grand Junction, Colorado 1,443.000 178,045
Total 3,968,000 489,378
Effective Precipitation
Cropland 25,000 3,083
Phreatophytes 5,400 666
Total 30,400 3,749
System Depletions
Water surface evaporation
Canals 8,000 986
Rivers 8,000 986
Phreatophyte consumption
Along canals and drains 64,000 7,891
Adjacent to rivers 21,400 2,639
Cropland consumption 175,OOP 21,701
Total 276,400 34,203
Surface Outflows
Colorado River at Colorado-Utah State Line 3,722,000 458,924
66
-------
TABLE 8. GRAND VALLEY DISTRIBUTION OF CANAL FLOWS IN 1968
(Skogerboe and Walker, 1972).
Budget Item
Canal Diversions
Spi 1 lage
Seepage
Evaporation
Lateral Diversions
Total
Lateral Diversions
Seepage
Field Tai Iwater
Root Zone Diversions
Total
Root Zone Diversions
Evapotranspi ration*
Deep Percolation
Total
Ground Water Return Flows
Phreatophyte Consumption
Subsurface and Drain Flows
Total
Acre-Feet Ha-m Acre-Feet
560,000 69,048
103,000
25,000
8,000
424,000
560,000
424,000 52,279
51,000
162,000
211,000
424,000
211,000 26,016
150,000
61,000
211,000
137,000 16,892
60,000
77,000
137,000
Ha-m
12,700
3,083
986
52,279
69,048
6,288
19,975
26,016
52,279
18,495
7,521
26,016
7,398
9,494
16,892
* Not including effective precipitation.
67
-------
TABLE 9. SALT BUDGET FOR GRAND VALLEY DURING 1968
(Skogerboe and Walker, 1972).
00
Budget Item
Inflows
Colorado River near Cameo
Plateau Creek near Cameo
Gunnison River near
Grand Junction
Total
Outflows
Colorado River near
Colorado-Utah State Li he
Salt Pickup
Flow
(acre-feet)
2,413,000
113,000
1,443,000
3,968,000
3,722,000
Concentration Salt Load
Ha"m (ppm) (tons)
297,523 454
13,810 454
177,921 769
489,254
458,923 745
1,490,000
69,000
l ,511,000
3,070,000
3,771,000
701 ,000
Metric Tons "
1,639,000
75,900
1,662,100
3,377,000
4,148,100
771,100
-------
specific definitions of these terms, a discussion of terms and values in the
Grand Valley is in order.
Possibly the most general measure of how efficiently water is utilized
in an agricultural area is the percentage of the total diversions which are
beneficially used by crops. From Table 8, it could be seen that for the
Grand Valley, an efficiency of about 27 percent will be realized. This
efficiency is determined by dividing the cropland consumptive use minus
effective precipitation by the canal diversions. To improve irrigation effi-
ciency, several management practices and structural improvements could be made
by canal companies and irrigation districts. For example, by eliminating spil-
lage in the system as a means of capacity management and replacing it by call
periods and diversion regulation, the efficiency could be increased by 18
percent to more than 45 percent. Canal linings would further enhance this
measure to almost 50 percent. The other available improvements are largely
of an individual nature depending on the care and control of water by the
i rrigators.
Associated with the irrigation efficiency noted above are two more speci-
fic measures of conveyance efficiency. Canal conveyance efficiency and lat-
eral conveyance efficiency may be taken as the percentages of the carried
flows which reached the intended destinations. In the Valley, the efficien-
cies of both systems are 3k percent and 88 percent, respectively.
Once the flows reach the lateral and farm ditch systems, it is possible
to attach an efficiency measure to the irrigations themselves. Skogerboe and
Walker (1972) define farm efficiency as the percentage of water available to
the farm which is consumptively used. Thus, farm efficiency is approximately
35 percent. This value can also be significantly improved by better water
management. Specifically, the minimization of field tailwater and lateral
linings could potentially increase farm efficiency to 86 percent. Certainly,
a reasonable figure would be 60-70 percent if effective programs were
undertaken.
Probably the most important measure of efficiency with respect to salin-
ity control is termed application efficiency. This value represents the
fraction of the flows applied to the root zone reservoir that is utilized by
the crops. Its importance is that deep percolation is directly evaluated.
In the Grand Valley, an average value of application efficiency is about 71
percent. The most significant improvement to this value can be made through
a coordinated and effective irrigation scheduling program.
SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
The salt load added to the Colorado River as it passes through the Grand
Valley is the result of subsurface irrigation return flows which take into
solution the natural salts in the alluvial soils and underlying Mancos shale
formation. The sources of these subsurface return flows are canal seepage,
lateral seepage, and deep percolation losses resulting from over i rrigat ion .^
Together, deep percolation and lateral seepage contribute 83 percent of the
ground water flows. The average salinity of these subsurface return flows
69
-------
is approximately 8,700 mg/1, which results in a salt pickup rate of 10-12 tons
per acre (22-27 m-tons/ha) annually.
PROBLEMS DUE TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY
The primary local problem resulting from poor water management is reduced
crop yields on approximately 30,000 acres (12,150 ha). Agricultural land use
surveys have shown salt-affected soils, abandoned irrigated land resulting
from soil sal inization, and once productive agricultural lands now being used
for pasture because of high ground water levels. A large portion of this
acreage is located along a strip of land one mile wide on the north side of
the Colorado River.
Present irrigation practices result in nonbeneficial evapotranspiration
losses from phreatophytes. High water tables resulting from canal and lateral
seepage, along with deep percolation losses, also result in such nuisance
problems as sewer infiltration, basement flooding and localized swamps which
lead to public health problems associated with the production of mosquitoes.
The most serious problems resulting from the saline irrigation return
flows of Grand Valley are experienced in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Increasing salinity concentrations are threatening the utility of water
resources in the downstream areas of Arizona, California and the Republic of
Mexico. Detriments to agricultural water users are primarily being encountered
in Imperial and Mexicali Valleys, while the primary urban detriments are
occurring in Los Angeles and San Diego. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1971) reports that existing damages to Lower Basin users would in-
crease from $16 million annually in 1970 to $51 million annually by the turn
of the century if planned developments do not include appropriate salinity
control measures, while more recent estimates of the U.S. Bureau of Reclam-
ation (Bessler and Maltic, 1975) show present damages at $53 million annually,
which is projected to be $124 million annually by the year 2000.
FUTURE WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Mineral pollution is the most serious problem in the Colorado River
Basin. The problem is .serious because the basin is approaching conditions of
full development and utilization of the available water resources. Thus, while
the salinity problem may seem unique to basins of the arid West, it will
ultimately be faced by nonarid areas as the water use approaches the available
supply. Thus, the salinity control program developed for the Colorado River
Basin may be expected to serve as a model for future programs in other basins,
where mineral pollution is a problem.
The seriousness of mineral pollution in the Colorado River is exemplified
by the history of efforts to deal with it. One prominent example was the sal-
inity crisis of 1963 at the U.S.-Mexico border which was resolved by expendi-
ture of "emergency" funds to construct a bypass for mineralized flows.
Another example was the resolution of the seven Colorado River Basin States
unanimously urging the Secretary of the Interior to defer establishment of
70
-------
salinity standards until a workable basin-wide mineral pollution control
program could be developed.
It is obvious that the water quality problem in the Colorado River Basin
has become chronic before full utilization of the water resources has been
determined. The philosophy surrounding future developments will probably be
one of accompanying each development with a corresponding decrease in the salt
load in order to maintain present water quality levels.
The Upper Basin water users are particularly affected by these conditions
because most of the future developments involve intrabasin diversions, in-
basin oil shale developments and possible hydro-electric and thermo-electric
production. None of these water uses add significantly to the salt loading
aspect, but each diminishes the quantity of pure water available for diluting
the salt loads already being carried. Consequently, future development of
water resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin must be associated with
more rigid salinity controls on the existing salt sources, many of which
are agriculture-re la ted.
71
-------
SECTION 6
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
PHYSICAL CAUSES
The combination of geologic setting and an abundant water supply in Grand
Valley has not only resulted in significant salt loads reaching the Colorado
River to the detriment of downstream water users, but has also created signif-
icant waterlogging and salinity problems for farmers in Grand Valley.
Abandoned irrigated lands and reduced agricultural productivity of the lower
lands are visual evidence of these problems. Salt accumulation on the ground
surface is visible at numerous places throughout the Grand Valley.
In past geologic time, the Grand Valley.was overlain by an inland sea,
which resulted in the deposition of salt-laden sediments. After eruption of
the earth's surface and the formation of mountains, erosion of the surface mar-
ine formations occurred. Today, after considerable erosion, the Grand Valley
is still underlain by a marine formation called the Mancos Shale formation.
Overlying this formation are alluvial soils eroded from farther upstream and
the nearby mountains surrounding the Grand Valley. These alluvial soils also
contain large quantities of salts.
The Mancos Shale formation is exposed at many places throughout the Valley
including the south bank of the Colorado River upstream from the city of Grand
Junction, along the northern boundary of the irrigated lands in Grand Valley
(e.g., the Government Highline Canal was excavated into the Mancos Shale form-
ation at many locations along its course), and many small hills or knobs intei—
spersed among the irrigated lands. This shale is characterized by lenses of
crystalline salts which are readily dissolved by water when contacted by it.
Added to this geologic setting is a water supply which on the average is
at least three times greater than the crop water requirements. Although much
of this excess water returns to open drains as surface runoff, which has neg-
ligible impact upon the salinity in the Colorado River, there are still signi-
ficant quantities of water that reach the underlying Mancos Shale formation.
These subsurface return flows are the result of seepage losses from canals and
laterals, and excessive deep percolation losses from overirrigation of the
croplands.
There are two important indicators of the abundant water supply in Grand
Valley. First of all, most laterals run a continuous flow rate throughout the
irrigation season. Secondly, there is almost a complete lack of flow measuring
devices along the laterals and at the farm inlets. Water is measured at the
72
-------
turnout gate from the canals into the laterals, but below these turnout struc-
tures there are usually no measurements of the quantities of water- Thus, a
farmer has little knowledge of the amount of water he is using.
ECONOMIC CAUSES
Inefficiency in Water Use
In most irrigated areas, available supplies of water are allocated among
farmer-users on the basis of the rights they have established in the past.
The allocation is thus established on legal rather than economic grounds. This
being the case, the users tend to apply throughout the irrigation season all
the water to which they are entitled. There are frequent overapplications of
water to crops, water percolates into the subsoil beyond the root zone, and
then moves downward into a shallow aquifer and then laterally to receiving
streams. As it moves, this return flow picks up salts which occur naturally
in the soils and transport them to the stream or aquifer.
Application of excessive amounts of water are attributable to allocations
which exceed need, plus local water prices (conveyance costs) which a^e too low
to encourage efficient use. This problem of price is one of ineffective re-
flection of the "opportunity cost" of water, i.e., its value in alternative
uses. Most productive factors are allocated through markets. There is oppor-
tunity for competing users to bid for, not only the factors, but also the raw
materials from which the factors are produced. So, prices of the factors re-
flect their alternative uses and the market allocates resources and factors so
that efficient use is realized.
Pollution of receiving streams by irrigation return flows depends not
only on excessive use of water but on other factors such as soil types, slopes
of fields, types of crops, stages of growth, irrigation methods, and drainage
facilities. This discussion focuses on the management and quality of irriga-
tion water as the most critical variable.
In general, the amount of return flow pollution appears to be positively
correlated with the quantity of irrigation water applied, and negatively cor-
related with the management of irrigation water, as shown in Figure 12(a). As
water is applied beyond the consumptive use requirements 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 relationship depends upon the level of
water management, so that curve A corresponds with a low level of management
and curve B with a high 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 12(a) serves as a general principle in order to illustrate the general
conceptual relationship.
Demand-supply relationships, given the allocative mechanism which now
exists, are illustrated in Figure 12(b) and 12(c). Quantities of water used
by farmers are then related to the pollution function in Figure 12(a).
73
-------
Pollution Level
(units/acre)
0 Quantity of Water q
(units/hectares)
(a) Pollution Function
Price
($)
SL
\
Quantity of Water
(total units)
(b) Market
Price
($)
Quantity of Water
(uni ts/hectares)
(c) Farmer
Figure 12. Present irrigation/pollution relation.
-------
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 12(b), SL» 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 Q|_7 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 sup-
plied 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 12
(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 12 (c), the
individual farmer will rationally demand q[_ units of water per hectare at the
average conveyance cost of PL per unit of water. He will apply for and re-
ceive a right for the 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 q^_ units per hectare of irriga-
tion water. If the level of water management corresponds with curve B in
Figure 12(a), then the present allocation system results in an irrigation
return flow pollution level of S^ units per hectare.
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 nonwater right holders could rent
water from those with water rights without jeopardizing those rights—condi-
tions which will be justified later. Then, water right holders acting as
suppliers of rental water would have an upward sloping supply curve, S^, rep-
resenting increasing opportunity costs as shown in Figure 13(b). This supply
curve represents the quantity of water that water right holders would rent
rather than use at each price. The rental market demand curve, DR, represents
the aggregate marginal value product of irrigation water to nonright holders.
The equilibrium quantity, QR, represents the amount of water that right hold-
ers would rent to nonright holders.
Individual water right holders would adjust to the rental market equili-
brium price, PR, by reducing the quantity of water irrigated from qL to ^R.
That is, water right holders could realize a greater return from their right
to ^L units of water per acre by reducing their irrigation to q^ units per
hectare and renting the surplus (q|_ qft) units per hectare. The derived
demand for irrigation water with a rental market, d^, differs from the pre-
sent demand curve, d|_, in that it is horizontal at the market price level
beyond qR, as shown in Figure 13(c).
If nonright holders are assumed to have identical irrigation demand
curves to those with water rights, dj_, then each nonright holder will also
rationally use q^ units of water per hectare at a rental market equilibrium
price of PR. The effect on irrigation return flow pollution is that each
farmer would cause ^R rather than S|_ units of pollution per hectare, as shown
In Figure 13(a). On the other hand, there are more irrigators. The net
75
-------
Pollution Level
(uni ts/acre)
Quantity of Water
(uni ts/hectares)
(a) Pollution Function
Price
($)
Quantity of Water
(total units)
(b) Market
Quantity of Water
(un i ts/hectares)
(c) Farmer
Figure 13. Irrigation/pollution relation with rental market.
76
-------
effect of the rental market depends upon the ratio of the proportional in-
crease in the number of irrigators to the proportional decrease in the pollu-
tion of each irrigator. If the ratio is less than one, then total pollution
is expected to decline.
External i t ies
Further complicating the problem of agricultural pollution of river water
is the very practical ability of farmers to avoid paying the costs of the in-
creased salinity in the return flows. There is no mechanism to force them to
pay, to internalize, this production cost. In their attempt to maximize
profits, they therefore do not pay the costs of pollution. They select pro-
duction methods and techniques which will maximize net returns. Alternative
production methods, though they may be less polluting, are rejected if they
are higher in cost.
The internal ization of costs of pollution (generally conceived as costs
assoc'ated with reclamation of polluted waters) is depicted in Figure 1A. The
curye^i reflects all costs of production except for those associated with
salinity in return flows, i.e., pollution. Curve AC2 includes the pollution
costs and thus lies above AC^. The curve AR represents the price of the pro-
duct produced. The intersection of ACi and AR describes the quantity that
will be produced, OC^ , if pollution costs are unpaid. If, however, the pro-
ducer is forced to internalize pollution costs, he will reduce production to
OQ2, the intersection of AC2 and AR. The level of production QQ.-\ could be
maintained only if the price of the product rose to P2.
So, any measure (e.g., a pollution tax) which forces the farmer to recog-
nize and accept the cost associated with water quality degradation will likely
cause a reduction in output. Most affected will be low value, irrigated crops
which may not then be produced. Whether we should use such a measure depends
on the comparative effectiveness of tax and treatment and all other measures
which might be adopted to manage quality in return flows.
AC,
p
AC,
Quantity Produced
Figure 14. Costs of production of agricultural crops, with and without
internalization of pollution costs.
77
-------
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
in particular, 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 resource. 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 in-
terests 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 the Grand
Valley, a number of basic legal causes of water pollution can be identified
which stem from state-wide laws to local application.
The first legal cuase is universal throughout the 17 western states,
namely the failure to enforce the concept of beneficial use provisions of the
law. The reason is two-fold. 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 impos-
sibility. Generally, our system of water law places emphasis upon the .right
to use water, not the duty to use it appropriately.
Another legal problem that exists is the absence of specific responsibil-
ity or duty for water quality control by the irrigation districts and companies,
Their function is primarily to capture and convey their entitled water supply
to district water users. The responsibility of the irrigation companies stops
at the canal turnout structures which discharge water into the laterals. An
exception is the Government Highline Canal (Grand Valley Water Users Associa-
tion) which maintains some responsibilities for distributing water in laterals.
Unfortunately, the water users under each lateral are in general not
formally organized, which inhibits the equitable distribution of irrigation
water supplies among the individual users. In the past, this situation has
reflected, again, the abundant water supply in the Grand Valley. However,
there are still numerous squabbles and bickering regarding the equitable dis-
tribution of water conveyed at the laterals. The irrigation companies^ usu-
ally refuse to become involved in such disputes. This situation is further
aggravated by the lack of flow measuring structures.
A final problem results from the priority of right held by the water
users. The Grand Valley Irrigation Company holds the first priority water
right on the Colorado River within the boundaries of the State of Colorado.
There are also many other early priority rights held by the various irrigation
78
-------
districts in Grand Valley. The "Cameo Demand," which is the required water
deliveries as measured at a U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging station
located on the Colorado River upstream from Grand Valley, is for 1,850 cfs
(52 cms) during the irrigation season. These rights are for irrigation and
hydropower. The large irrigation rights are partly the result of obtaining
rights to irrigate more land than is presently being irrigated. This "Cameo
Demand" has a definite impact upon the value of upstream junior water rights,
as well as future upstream water resources development. The problem caused by
senior rights (almost anywhere throughout the West under the appropriation
doctrine) is that they are compelled to divert their full entitlement in order
to preserve the total right. Consequently, in the case of the "Cameo Demand,"
and a call for water by other senior water right holders in the Valley, much
flexibility for really managing the water supply is lost in an effort to pre-
serve the water rights, even though the rights allow diversions of water in
excess of what is needed to irrigate the lands under cultivation.
SOCIAL CAUSES
The problem of water quality exists in a social setting as well as in an
economic and legal setting. Water users are humans, who are more comfortable
with the status quo. They are jealous of their rights, uncertain about changes
(usually proposed by others), unaware of certain problems of which they are a
part, resistant to authority, hesitant to cooperate, etc. These characteris-
tics, though natural, complicate management of resources in the public inter-
est. They make correction of water pollution difficult.
The Individual Level
At the individual level, there are three general categories under which
the conditions mentioned above can emerge and thus provide the impetus for
the problem of water quality to continue. They are: 1) the perception by
the individual of the problem; 2) the actual irrigation activity pursued by
the farmer; and 3) the perception of the farmer regarding his relationship
with his neighbors in terms of water quality. How the individual users fit
into these categories will determine to a large extent how the problem is to
be defined and then coped with.
As a whole, there is a perception by the farmers of the salinity prob-
lem, yet it is perceived in a special manner. First, it is viewed as a his-
torical occurrence, something that is "natural" and there are people who are
now asking the question, why is this salinity situation of such great concern
now? In addition, many believe that much of the present problem is due to
outside causes such as the trans-mountain diversion of water to Denver. In
short, of those people who do perceive the problem of salinity, and not
everyone does, they generally see it in terms of conditions that are not
directly linked to on-farm management practices.
The second category describing the conditions that can encourage the
problem situation is the actual irrigation activity pursued by the farmer.
With the combination of a plentiful water supply and a legal arrangement that
forces the farmers to utilize their full water right, along with some other
79
-------
beliefs, there is no incentive for the farmer to utilize a minimum amount of
water. Besides this situation, there is differentiation made within the area
between the professional farmers who do utilize their water in an appropriate
manner, and those other "farmers." It also has been observed that the old
time farmers will not easily change, if they do at all, but the younger farm-
ers are more receptive to various forms of change. A large part of the prob-
lem of water management is the new part-time farmer, the suburbanite, etc.,
who does not know how the irrigation system runs and because of this pursues
activity that is detrimental to the irrigation system as a whole. Thus, the
different number and types of farmers and water users yield different manage-
ment practices.
The third major category of conditions that facilitates the water quality
problem is the perception of the farmer regarding his relationship with his
neighbors in terms of water quality. Regarding farmers in the Grand Valley,
there is a lack of a basin-wide concern over the quality of the Colorado River.
Farmers still are concerned about why they have to pay the costs for problems
that are a hundred miles away. In addition, while some laterals have some
sort of an agreement on the managing of that water in the lateral, many more
laterals are the focus of constant conflict. Therefore, proper management is
hindered by a lack of user cooperation.
The Organizational Level
Regarding the organizational entities involved with irrigation, two cat-
egories emerge which facilitate the water quality problems in irrigation
return flow: the integration of those organizations and their respective
authority with regard to irrigation quality. It is within this organizational
structure that the normative standards of behavior regarding irrigation return
flow can be established to relieve this problem, and this in turn can change
the various perceptions by individual users regarding irrigation return flow
quality.
In the Grand Valley there already is established a framework for integra-
tion among the irrigation districts and companies, the Federal entities, the
state organizations, and the farmers, due to the salinity control program.
There is still some question among districts as to thei.r authority over the
use of water by the farmer on his land. Even though the integration of the
various organizational entities involved has begun through the construction of
various committees, the consequences of such a linkage have not yet been
internalized by the farmer; i.e., that ideal of cooperation and an expected
perception pattern has not been transferred to the farmer.
80
-------
SECTION 7
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
The purpose of this section is to identify potential solutions to the
irrigation return flow problem in the Grand 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
individual solutions that could deal simultaneously with several of the phy-
sical, economic, legal, and social causes of the problem.
PHYSICAL SOLUTIONS
Water entering the near-surface aquifers in Grand Valley displaces highly
mineralized waters from these aquifers into the Colorado River. In any area
where the water is in prolonged contact with soil, the concentration of min-
eral salts tends toward a chemical equilibrium with the soil. In Grand
Valley, as in many other areas, high equilibrium salinity concentrations are
known to exist in the near surface aquifer. The key to achieving a reduction
in salt loading is to lower the ground water levels, which will result in less
displacement of water from the aquifer into the Colorado River. The most
effective means for lowering ground water levels is to reduce the source of
ground water flows, which can be accomplished by reducing seepage through
canal and lateral lining or by reducing deep percolation losses resulting
from excessive irrigation by improved on-farm water management practices.
Since a leaching requirement is a necessary part of local irrigation, some
deep percolation losses can be expected under the most efficient irrigation
practices. Therefore, tile drainage systems are also realistic salinity con-
trol alternatives when deep percolation and seepage losses, which have lower
salinity concentrations than flows in the lower reaches of the ground water
system, can be intercepted and removed before equilibrium concentrations are
reached. Thus, drainage systems must be considered along with the other
adaptable salinity control measures.
Water De1?ve r y Subsystem
Irrigation delivery system improvements would prevent wasteage of water
resulting from seepage and operational spills. Nearly all canals and most
laterals in the Grand Valley are unlined. Lining of canals and lining or
piping of laterals would reduce losses due to seepage and phreatophyte
consumption..
81
-------
The lining of laterals, or conversion to pipelines, would not only reduce
seepage and consequently subsurface return flows, but would also be beneficial
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. The additional water control pro-
vided by lining, or pipelines, along with flow measuring devices would have a
significant effect upon farm irrigation application efficiencies.
On-Farm Water Use Subsystem
The most important element in reducing the salt contribution to the
Colorado River from Grand Valley is improved on-farm management. The pre-
dominant method of irrigation is furrow irrigation. Thus, it becomes highly
important that present furrow irrigation practices be modified in order to
reduce the deep percolation losses that are presently reaching the shallow
ground water aquifer.
Improved water application practices and scheduling of irrigation appli-
cation would allow a reduction in the amount of water delivered to the farm.
Present surface furrow irrigation practices on the predominantly heavy soils
in Grand Valley, along with a more than plentiful irrigation water supply,
result in both large quantities of tailwater runoff and deep percolation
losses.
Two of the most common irrigation application methods for reducing the
quantity of applied water are sprinkler and trickle irrigation. The heavy
soils in Grand Valley require careful design and operation of the various
types of sprinkler irrigation systems; however, this method of irrigation can
be utilized when proper technical assistance is provided. Trickle irrigation
is highly adaptable for use with high cash value crops, which in Grand Valley
would be orchard crops; recently there have been some attempts to grow vine
grapes, which would benefit from trickle irrigation.
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
handled, 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
quality.
Fertilizer applied to the soil in excess of crop requirements represents
an economic loss to the farmer and causes degradation of quality of streams
receiving return flow water. Both losses can be reduced by using soil analy-
sis to determine the correct amount of fertilizer to apply, by timing 'appli-
cations to reduce the time available for fertilizers to be leached from the
soil, and by placing the fertilizer where it is readily available to the
roots. However, the most expedient means for achieving high fertilizer use
efficiency is to adopt improved water management practices which provide high
irrigation application efficiencies.
82
-------
Water Removal Subsystem
The water removal subsystem consists of removing surface runoff from
agricultural lands (if not captured and pumped back on the farm) and receiving
deep percolation losses from irrigation. Tile drainage is a very effective
means for removing the less saline waters in the upper portions of the ground
water reservoir, thereby reducing the volume of salts returning to the river.
By using tile drainage, salts are allowed to accumulate below the drains.
Tile drainage will not completely remove all of the water moving below the
root zone unless the water table is lowered below the natural ground water
outlet. Usually, some water will still move through the ground water reser-
voir and return to the surface river, but the quantity of such ground water
return flows can be reduced considerably by tile drainage. The quality deg-
radation to receiving streams from tile drainage outflow can be minimized by
treating the outflow. This points out another advantage of tile drainage,
which is the collection of subsurface return flows.
The implementation of physical improvements in the irrigation system will
require some form of incentives. Possibilities include increasing the cost
of water delivered in order to make the construction of new physical facili-
ties desirable to local water users, subsidizing the cost of physical facili-
ties through cost-sharing arrangements, or some form of taxation.
ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS
With reference to the major economic cause of irrigation return flow
pollution outlined previously, there are two respective economic solutions:
l) 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. While the estab-
lishment 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 the disruption to 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 take as given the present structure of water rights
and allotments and would permit the rental of surplus water to upstream water
users without jeopardizing these rights and allotments.
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 can readily be specified. There is a legal
requirement that water transfers not injure other water rights. In most cases,
transfers must be restricted to the amount previously used consumptively;
however, since the return flows are not reused in the state of Colorado, there
83
-------
would be no downstream damages to water rights holders by transferring water
upstream of Grand.Valley. Such transfers will not be detrimental to down-
stream users so long as the state of Colorado does not exceed its entitlement
to the Colorado River, which presently is not the case.
The demand for rental water would represent its addition to the total
value of output per additional unit of water. The market supply schedule
would represent the water right 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 and
those supplying would have an economic incentive to use water more efficient-
ly. 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.
Po 11u t i on Taxes/Trea tment Subs ? d ? es
An improved allocation of water among agricultural uses would certainly
be helpful to water use and to improved quality of return flows, but it would
not be sufficient to correct the problem of increasing salinity of the river,
for the farmer is still able to dispose of the relatively saline return flows
without cost. There is no internalization of the costs associated with the
polluted water. A pollution tax could be employed to cause the internaliza-
tion of this cost. It would be levied so as to approximate the cost of rec-
lamation of water to required or desired levels. Taxes could be applied to
irrigation return flows directly, which would be extremely cumbersome, or
could be applied through indirect relationships between water supply, crops
and irrigation return flow quality that would result in higher taxes being
applied to higher water delivery rates, but also taking into account the crops
being grown. Proceeds from the tax would then be used either to treat the
effluent (the return flow) or to develop influent controls, such as improved
distribution systems, improved irrigation systems, improved cultural practices,
etc. The exact form and level of a tax can be specified only for particular
cases. It may be desirable to impose the tax at a level somewhat less than
the pollution cost. The subsidized water management practices and capital
improvements could benefit not only from the proceeds of the specific pollu-
tion tax, but also from other tax revenues. The judgment of the Congress or
of state legislatures would be necessary to,such decisions. But the notion of
penalties and rewards, i.e., taxes and subsidies, to reduce pollution of water
used in agriculture is a useful one and should be included among the alterna-
tive solutions to irrigation return flow quality problems.
Land Retirement
A more drastic approach to control of saline return flows in an irrigated
area would be permanent withdrawal of water supplies. Because of the aridity
of the study area, this would imply that irrigated lands would be permanently
retired from the production of crops. Land retirement, either compulsory or
noncompulsory, is a zero discharge control option that could be implemented
in conjunction with other less costly structural and nonstructural control
measures.
84
-------
Water supplies could be withdrawn in two ways: first, the least produc-
tive soils could be taken out of production on a selective basis. This option
would have a minimum impact on the local economy, but would not necessarily
be less expensive in comparison to a second option, namely retirement of an
entire block of irrigated land and service canals and laterals. This alter-
native could have a greater impact on the local economy, since the soils in-
cluded would have a higher average productivity. However, because seepage
losses would be omitted under the selective (or partial) retirement scheme,
the amount of salts avoided per acre or unit area would be considerably
larger with the complete retirement option (Leathers and Young, 1976).
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 the reason for either
achieving the problem or the solution. Unfortunately, the law often becomes
a constraint as needs and conditions change, requiring amendments, additions
or deletions to remove legal hindrances to the solution of water quality
problems (Radosevich, 1972). For irrigation return flow quality control in
the Grand Valley of Colorado, several potential legal solutions exist which
would facilitate improvement of the present situation.
Beneficial Use
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 Colorado and other western
states reflect the difficulty of enforcing this general concept. It is sug-
gested, therefore, that the State Engineer's Office 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 quant-
ity diversions, use and quality of discharge. They will also provide the basis
for shifting the burden of proper use of the public resource upon the benefac-
tor (both purveyor and user) and in essence identify the duty for delivery, use
and removal of water.
Water Transfer Policy
A second legal solution is to merge the economic benefits from a more
liberal transfer policy into legal guidelines that still provide protection to
existing water rights holders. This would require the adoption of an incen-
tive mechanism to encourage water users to "market transfer" some of their
water through the irrigation districts, or possibly through the Grand Valley
Canal Systems, Inc. Water could be rented or leased to upstream water users
(e.g., other irrigators.or new energy complexes) with the revenues being used
to further improve the Grand Valley irrigation system (see Radosevich, 1972,
p. 275).
85
-------
Incentive Programs
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 resources development funds in Colorado, administered by the Colorado
Water Conservation Board, 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.
Water Organizations
Finally, it is proposed that water users on laterals organize into mini-
companies to distribute and manage the water supply delivered them by the
parent irrigation company or district of which they are members. These irri-
gation companies, districts and water user associations are primarily con-
cerned with diversion and delivery of water to shareholders' laterals and
maintenance of the basic system. As has been previously stated, there are
often disputes within the laterals on the water distribution and very little
effort to manage the water.
Thus, without going into the elaborate legal structure found in most
companies, it is proposed that laterals form into executive committees with
duty and right to divide, deliver and manage (prevent waste and excessive
application) water delivered to the lateral. A simple agreement of organiza-
tion should be signed by all water users on the lateral giving the executive
committee the power to divide, deliver and manage the water, assess members
for charges of the lateral and structures, and authority to cease delivery to
members who abuse the organization's rules. The membership or committee
should elaborate on the rules as an appendix to the basic agreement.
SOCIAL SOLUTIONS
Solutions to the problem of irrigation quality control from the social
standpoint evolve from the social conditions that allow such a state of
affairs to exist. Therefore, possible solutions that will produce changes
in that social situation must have two points of attack: the individual and
the organizational network.
The Individual
The first solution must be aimed at educating the farmers on how'the
irrigation system works. This may not apply to many of the older farmers', but
it is perceived as a need for the newer farmers and the many suburbanites who
use the system. This educational system could serve as a backdoor entrance to
make the farmers more sensitive to the water quality problems. It seems that
this valley has been inundated with programs, mass media coverage, and re-
searchers all dealing with the salinity problem. Still, the perception of
many farmers to the problem is not conducive to a change in on-farm
36
-------
management practices. Informing users as to how the system works instead of
assuming that everyone is familiar with irrigation may provide the means to
further explain the salinity problem in a more effective manner.
Next, an attempt should be made to organize the users along their re-
spective laterals. There is a perceived need for greater cooperation among
the users which in turn can make the system a more efficient management entity
with the effect of improving the return flow quality. In conjunction with
this effort, there should be more resources directed toward the SCS on-farm
management program. This two-pronged attack, on the individual farmer's
utilization of his irrigation water and on the lateral's cooperative use of
that water, can yield practices that would enhance the return flow quality.
Efforts along this line are starting to emerge and they should be strength-
ened and expanded in order for this program to become viable.
The Organizational Network
One final solution from the sociological perspective is to exploit the
existing valley-wide organizations and committees concerned with irrigation
management in such a manner as to lift them out of being a vehicle for only
exhanging information and viewpoints to one of being an action-oriented group.
Use one of the two groups, or combine them, and reorganize it to provide the
mechanism to coordinate action programs in salinity control, give it the means
to become a vehicle to implement the various programs, charge it with enforce-
ment powers; in short, create a valley-wide authority to help in the manage-
ment of the various irrigation systems in the valley. The idea behind this
is to provide an organizational framework that is capable of supporting
individual programs to enhance irrigation return flow quality.
In summary, the solutions that emphasize the social component of the
problem are:
1. Increase the educational program on how the irrigation system is
managed.
2. Organize the water users into lateral organizational entities.
3. Increase the SCS effort toward establishing improved on-farm
management practices.
A. Reorganize the existing organizational structure that is created to
only exchange information and views on irrigation management to one of
becoming an action-oriented entity to facilitate improved irrigation
management practices.
COMBINATIONS OF SOLUTIONS
There are many possible combinations of solutions to the irrigation
return flow problem. Obviously, most adjustments suggested here could not be
implemented independently of other physical, economic, legal, or social con-
cerns. Packages, or combinations of solutions, however, are difficult to
87
-------
construct since they tend not to be generalizable, but situation-specific. In
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
successful 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 possible 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 establish-
ing new practices as part of a new social context.
The suggested water rental market is not implementable without other
institutional changes. It would require specification of a marketing entity
and a means of determining and regulating possible downstream injuries from
the transfer. Finally, physical facilities for accommodating transfers would
be required, therefore, technological measures would have to be incorporated
in any water market approach.
There is no need to provide exhaustive lists of examples. The point
remains that there is a need for combined approaches or solutions. It is
suggested by this research that further analysis of potential solutions
through field testing is in order to arrive at a consensus relative to com-
binations of solutions. It is this last quest (and final section) that
constitutes also the core argument of this research.
-------
SECTION 8
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Both the identification of potential solutions in the previous section
and the assessment of these potential solutions to be reported below have
benefited significantly from the numerous research studies and investigations
that have been conducted by various state and federal agencies in the Grand ,
Valley during the past nine years. Technological alternatives for salinity
control in Grand Valley have been under investigation by Colorado State
University since September 1968. Other state and federal agencies undertook
additional research and investigations beginning in 1972. The Colorado State
University field research was completed inNovember 1976 and the data analysis
reported in May 1977 (Law and Skogerboe, 1977)- There have also been other
agencies actively involved in trying to implement a salinity control program
i n Grand Valley.
This particular study has been primarily concerned with the institutional
aspects of the salinity problem in Grand Valley. The irrigators in Grand
Valley have been exposed in recent years to the need for a local salinity
control program. They displayed an awareness and knowledge of the problems
involved in implementing a control program. In addition, local irrigation
leaders and state and federal agency personnel were interviewed in order to
benefit from their thinking and experience in assessing the potential solu-
tions for alleviating Grand Valley's salt contribution to the Colorado River.
EVALUATION BY RESEARCH TEAM
Evaluation of Technological Alternatives
The following discussion on technological alternatives primarily relates
each technology to the reduction of subsurface return flows (e.g., seepage
or deep percolation losses). Recent research results (Ayars, McWhorter and
Skogerboe, 1977) have shown that reductions in subsurface return flows are
directly related to reduction in salt pickup and the salt load reaching the
Colorado River from the Grand Valley. This subsection on technological
alternatives concludes with a cost-effectiveness analysis which relates the
costs of implementing various technologies to the resulting salt load
reduction in the Colorado River.
Water Delivery Subsystem—
The dilemmas being faced by irrigation officials are numerous, but can
be traced to one factor. When the demand for irrigation was realized and the
89
-------
canal alignments located, the expected demand for water was based on the total
area of land under the canal. However, when the acreages of roads, homes,
phreatophytes, etc., are deducted, the water available for each area is sig-
nificantly increased. For example, under the Grand Valley Canal are kk,llk
acres (18,133 ha) of which only 28,407 acres (11,505 ha) are irrigable. Con-
sequently, instead of having a water duty (annual volume of water diverted
from the river per unit area) of 5-76 acre-feet per acre (1.76 ha-m/ha),
there is more than 9 acre-feet per irrigable acre (2.7^ ha-m/ha). The result
is a two-fold problem:
1. With the excess of water available to the irrigators, it is more
economical to be wasteful because failure to provide adequate water to
crops during critical growing periods can affect yields more than an
overi rrigation.
2. The history of development in the western United States has always
shown water to be a valuable commodity in an area. As such, the rights
one has are to be protected. Without evidence of use, i.e., diversions
of water, rights can be lost. Consequently, water rights holders divert
water in the Grand Valley which they do not productively use. They do
not intend to be wasteful; they are simply protecting their rights.
Cana Is--An adequate evaluation of the operation and maintenance benefits
attained from canal lining is difficult. Correspondence with officials of
the Grand Valley Canal Systems, Inc., most of whom are also serving as local
irrigation and drainage officials, has delineated certain benefits resulting
from a canal lining program.
The linings, in addition to reducing the operation and maintenance costs,
also result in other direct benefits. The moderate gradient channels, when
running near capacity from April through October, experience comparatively
few problems with bank vegetation, mossing and sedimentation. Records and
comments from irrigation companies indicate an average maintenance cost per
mile of between $250 and $370 per year in the unlined sections, depending on
the canal size. In the demonstration area, the construction by CSU will
probably result in a total savings of $2,500 annually. Although periodic
maintenance is always necessary, there are linings ten or more years old
located throughout the Valley that have as yet required almost no attention.
When the canals are lined, the improvements to the delivery system for new
turnout structures and measuring devices greatly aid control, distribution
and measurement of water, thereby providing a stimulus to irrigators for
more efficient water management.
The local benefits from the linings in many parts of the Grand Valley
include factors such as improvement to adjacent lands. In a large portion
of the Valley, the value of land is primarily determined by the expanding
urban areas and as such do not greatly depend on agricultural production.
Nonetheless, the increased utility of wel1-drained soils is demonstrated
in the return to production when water tables are controlled and construc-
tion of basements in homes where they were not possible before.
90
-------
Several qualitative statements relative to the importance of canal sys-
tem improvement can be made at this point. The first aspect deals directly
with the impact of better system management on the salinity problem. Almost
every arid agricultural area depending upon an annually fluctuating water
supply can produce evidence to substantiate the fact that during periods of
diminished supply, farm production is often higher as a result of better
water management on the farm. The explanation for this observation may not
lie entirely in the use by the farmer, but also in the attempts to equitably
allocate water among the irrigators. Thus, the irrigation company or district
is the primary controller when faced with water distribution among demands
which totally exceed the supply. Some evidence exists in the Grand Valley
area to support the contention that more efficient management of water
resulted in significant reduction in salt loading to the river (lorns, 1965).
During the years, as shown earlier, when the supply was inadequate to meet
demands, the water was "rationed" and more efficient use was made. The con-
clusion therefore indicates that any presently proposed salinity control al-
ternative to be implemented on a valley-wide scale must involve efficient
canal management.
In order to improve canal system management, three types of changes
should be implemented: 1) system rehabilitation by lining and installation
of effective diversion and control structures; 2) water measurement of each
user; and 3) instigation of call periods for demands. The results of incor-
porating these principles into the operation of a delivery system would be a
surplus of water at the river diversion instead of at the canal turnout.
Consequently, a large part of the water which is presently flowing as field
tailwater or canal spillage could remain in the river. Two questions would
need consideration: 1) What incentive is there for canal companies to leave
the water in the river and risk losing their portion of their right? and
2) What use would be made of the surplus, and by whom?
Laterals—The term "lateral" refers to the small conveyance channels
delivering water from company operated canals to the cropland. The extent
of the lateral system was not clearly defined earlier and the effects of
laterals on the area hydrology were underestimated. As a result, consider-
able reevaluation was made to quantify the aspects of lateral system
management.
When water is turned into the lateral system, it becomes the responsi-
bility of the users entitled to the diversion. Single users served by an
individual turnout are not uncommon, but most laterals serve several irriga-
tors who decide among themselves how the lateral will be operated. Most of
the multiple-use laterals, which may serve as many as 100 users, are allowed
to run continuously with the unused water being diverted into the drainage
channels. This practice would be almost completely eliminated if the only
water diverted was that quantity appropriated to each acre in the company
water rights. The costs that would be passed on to the irrigator for a more
regulated canal system would also provide added incentive for more efficient
water management practices below the canal turnout. Thus, there would be an
indirect economic incentive for better management.
91
-------
There appears to be a considerable need for system rehabilitation in the
form of linings and regulating structures prior to placing restrictions on
lateral diversions. The reason is simply that little means of water distri-
bution on an equitable basis below the canal turnout exist. Aside from the
canal turnouts themselves, which could be rated individually, no observable
means of measurement exists. Without adding control and measurement struc-
tures, it would be impossible to either regulate lateral diversions or
distribute the water among users.
The benefits that would accrue from lining the lateral system in an area
like the Grand Valley are essentially the same as described earlier concerning
the canal linings. However, because of the vast extent of the lateral system,
the effect of the laterals is much greater than canals. As with the canal
system, the appurtenances, such as the control and measurement structures,
are an integral part of any lateral system improvements. Therefore, the
benefits derived from more efficient water management cannot be ignored.
Again, the formulation of salinity control measures must include, in
addition to canal system improvements, lateral improvements. In fact, the
delivery system in general must be rehabilitated, as well as undertaking
improved operation and management practices.
On-Farm Water Use Subsystem--
"Tuning Up" Existing Irrigat ion Methods — There is a paucity of data for
most irrigation systems in the western United States regarding on-farm evalu-
ation of irrigation practices. The lands of the Grand Valley are no excep-
tion, except that considerable data are now being collected. Much can be
accomplished by analyzing existing irrigation methods and practices 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 both water quality benefits and increased crop production.
Traditionally, surface irrigation methods result in too much water being
applied during seedling and plant emergence growth stages. This is the com-
bined 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 methods to allow higher early season irri--
gation application efficiencies. A cognizance of desirable early season
improvements would undoubtedly have carryover effects into later irrigations,
thereby enhancing water use efficiency throughout each irrigation season.
Field measurements are needed on farm fields throughout the Valley in
order to establish the quality and quantity and timing of farm irrigation
deliveries, the flow characteristics of the irrigation methods being employed
(which is almost entirely surface irrigation methods), consumptive use by
crops, tailwater runoff, leaching requirements, and the quality and quantity
of deep percolation losses. For each field that such data are collected,
recommendations can be made regarding modified irrigation practices that
would more beneficially utilize water supplies and fertilizer. In addition,
the use of these data in a hydrologic evaluation of each farm will allow
recommendations to be made for the entire Valley. Also, the field data will
92
-------
show constraints being faced by the irrigator in achieving higher irrigation
application efficiencies.
The results of the field studies should yield recommendations regarding
a variety of physical improvements which could be undertaken to eliminate
some or all of the constraints faced by the water users. These recommended
physical improvements can consist of simple modifications to the existing
irrigation method (e.g., concrete head ditches, employing different sizes of
siphon tubes, flow measurement structure(s), gated pipes, automated concrete
head ditches, etc.); conversion to new irrigation methods (e.g., converting
from furrow or border irrigation to sprinkler 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 water measurement structures, improved water con-
trol structures, etc.).
Sprinkler Irrigation--A conversion from surface methods of irrigation to
sprinkler irrigation systems by many of the farmers in the Grand Valley would
be highly beneficial in terms of efficient water use, with the greatest bene-
fits occurring during drought years. Sprinkler irrigation systems, properly
designed, installed and operated, have many advantages, both in terms of water
quantity and quality. Uniform water application is possible on all types of
soils. A properly designed system should result in no tailwater runoff and
drastically reduced deep percolation losses, which would also result in more
efficient fertilizer use. Drainage problems would be alleviated and existing
surface water supplies would be more effectively utilized.
Apart from the water quality benefits demonstrated by Colorado State
University (Walker, Skogerboe and Evans, 1977), there are many other advant-
ages to farmers in converting to sprinklers. The labor savings are particu-
larly noticeable in comparison with surface irrigation methods. With portable
solid-set or permanent set systems, labor is negligible and the systems lend
themselves to automation for all water application purposes.
Associated with the reduction of nutrient losses by reducing deep perco-
lation, further fertilizer loss reduction can be achieved by the ability to
use sprinkler systems to apply fertilizers at the time required by the plant.
Water soluble fertilizers can be applied through the sprinklers with the tim-
ing 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 below 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. Water soluble herbicides and insecticides can
also be applied through the sprinklers. As drainage problems are alleviated,
salt accumulation on the soil surface is reduced. This reduces the hazard to
seed germination and plant growth from the accumulated salts.
All of these advantages add up to a potential for cost savings and
increased returns for the farmer operators. Generally, one of the major
obstacles to adoption of sprinkler irrigation, however, is the high capital
cost involved. The cost of converting from surface methods to sprinklers
93
-------
will vary markedly, depending on the particular system adopted and the acreage
i rrigated.
Trickle Irrigation—Trickle or drip irrigation is a recently developed
irrigation method and would appear to have potential for orchard crops in the
study area. 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 char-
acteristics, develops in the plant's root zone beneath the "trickier" 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 affected through the ease with which the
correct amount of water is accurately applied.
For irrigating widely spaced crops (e.g., trees), the cost of a cor-
rectly designed trickle irrigation system is relatively low in comparison to
that for other solid set or 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 addi-
tion, where clogging is not a problem and emitter line maintenance is minimal,
operation 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 (3.05 m), the cost
of trickle irrigation is relatively high. The cost of a trickle irrigation
system for orchard crops is usually slightly more than $1,000 per acre
($2, J*69/ha). The cost of automating trickle irrigation systems is only
$100-$200 per acre ($247-$/»9Vha).
I rrigation Schedul in_g--l rrigation scheduling consists of two primary
components, namely evapotranspiration and available root zone soil moisture.
Evapotranspiration is calculated by using climatic data. The other major
category of required data pertains to soil characteristics. First of all,
field capacity and wilting point for the particular soils in any field must
be determined. More importantly, infiltration characteristics of the soils
must be measured. Only by knowing how soil intake rates change with time
during a single irrigation, as well as throughout the irrigation season, can
-------
meaningful predictions be made as to: a) the quantity of water that should
be delivered at the farm inlet for each irrigation; and b) the effect of
modifying deep percolation losses. With good climatic data and meaningful
soils data, accurate predictions as to the next irrigation date and the
quantity of irrigation water to be applied can be made. In order to insure
that the proper quantity of water is applied, a flow measurement structure
is absolutely required at the farm inlet.
The results of a demonstration project by Colorado State University indi-
cate that irrigation scheduling programs have a limited effectiveness for
controlling salinity in the Grand Valley under existing conditions. Exces-
sive water supplied, the necessity for rehabilitating the irrigation system
(particularly the laterals), and local resistance to change preclude managing
the amounts of water applied during successive irrigations. To overcome these
limitations, irrigation scheduling must be accompanied by flow measurement at
all the major diversion points, farm inlets, and field tailwater exits. In
addition, it is necessary for canal companies and irrigation districts to
assume an expanded role in delivery of the water. Some problems have been
encountered involving poor communication between farmer and scheduler, as
well as certain deficiencies in the scheduling program dealing with evapo-
transpirat ion and soil moisture predictions. These latter problems can be
easily rectified, however. Correcting these conditions will make irrigation
scheduling much more effective and acceptable locally.
Water budgets from which the study results were generated resulted from
incentive investigation on two local farms. The selection of the two study
farms was intended to be representative of conditions valley-wide. Analysis
of the budgets reveal that approximately 50 percent of the water applied to
the fields came during the April and May period when less than 20 percent of
the field evapotranspiration potential had been experienced. Salt pickup es-
timates during this early part of the season amounted to about 60 percent of
the annual total for each field. Another indication of the importance of
early season water management is presented in an analysis of irrigation
efficiencies. As the season progressed, the soils became less permeable and
the crop water use increased, causing marked improvements in irrigation effi-
ciency. Thus, if irrigation scheduling is employed in its optimal format,
salt pickup from' the two fields could have been reduced as much as 50 percent
or more.
The results of this demonstration project show that irrigation schedul-
ing is a necessary but not sufficient tool for achieving improved irrigation
efficiencies. The real strides in reducing the salt pickup resulting from
over!rrigation will come from the employment of scientific irrigation sched-
uling in conjunction with improved on-farm irrigation practices. This com-
bined effect could result in reduction of 300,000 tons (330,000 metric tons)
annually of salt pickup from the Grand Valley, depending upon the degree of
improvement in present on-farm irrigation practices.
Water Removal Subsystem—
Drainage investigation in the Grand Valley began shortly after the turn
of the century when local orchards began failing due to saline high water
tables. Study showed the soils to be not only saline but also having low
95
-------
permeabilities. At the time, the future development of the Bureau of
Reclamation's "Grand Valley Project" loomed as a severe threat to the lowlying
lands between it and the Colorado River. In answer to these drainage needs,
the solutions were clearly set forth but never fully implemented because of
the large capital investment required. However, the citizens of Grand Valley
did elect to form a drainage district supported by a mill tax levy in order
to construct open ditch drains and some buried tile drains to correct trouble
spots.
The construction of open drains has played an important role in Grand
Valley. These drains serve as outlets for tile drainage systems, as well as
intercepting and conveying tailwater runoff which would otherwise flow over
surface lands, infiltrate and contribute to additional subsurface ground
water flows, subsequently reaching the Colorado River with increased salt
pickup.
This study was undertaken with the history of local drainage well in
mind, but for a different purpose—that being the skimming of water from the
top of the water table before it reaches equilibrium with the highly saline
soils and aquifers below, as well as demonstrating to local farmers the bene-
fits in increased crop production by improved drainage.
Three farms were selected for drainage investigations during the 1972
irrigation season. The studies showed that the drainage problems on two of
the farms could be alleviated by improved on-farm water management. In par-
ticular, increasing irrigation efficiency during the early season would
sufficiently reduce deep percolation losses, which in turn would keep the
ground water level at a satisfactory depth below the ground surface to allow
good crop production.
The results from the two farms illustrate the adage—"an ounce of pre-
vention is worth a pound of cure." Thus, the first steps in a salinity
control program are to minimize: a) seepage losses from canals and laterals;
and b) deep percolation losses from croplands (ideally, the deep percolation
losses would not exceed the leaching requirement). By minimizing the amount
of moisture reaching the ground water, the requirements for field drainage
will also be minimized.
The third farm had been originally selected for investigation as an
example of the worst conditions encountered in Grand Valley. A 11.6 acre
(k.J hectares) field on this farm was selected for construction of a field
drainage relief system. Besides having a very high ground water level, the
soils have low permeability, high salt content and the topography is irregu-
lar. In order to correct these deficiencies, the following measures were
taken: a) a drainage system consisting of 4-inch diameter (10.2 cm) perfor-
ated corrugated plastic pipe was installed on 40-foot (12.2 m) centers at an
average depth of 6 feet (1.8 m); b) the field was leveled to allow better
surface irrigation; c) the field was plowed to a depth of 2 feet (60,cm) to
increase surface permeability; and d) the field was planted in salt tolerant
Jose Tall Wheatgrass with a cover crop of oats.
-------
Studies of the three farms, plus two additional farms investigated for
irrigation scheduling, show that field drainage effluents had a salinity
average of 3,000 mg/1 less than the present subsurface irrigation return
flows reaching the Colorado River.
A principal advantage of field drainage (e.g., tile or perforated pipe)
is that the effluent is a point source which can then be placed into a col-
lection system for disposal (e.g., evaporation ponds, deep well injection, or
desalination). Drainage in conjunction with salt disposal would be required
to achieve a zero discharge policy for irrigation return flows.
As part of this study, an alternative use of drainage was considered.
During the 1950"s, pump drainage from the deep cobble aquifer was tested and
proved most effective for reclaiming croplands. By itself, pump drainage
offers no salinity control benefits because the salinity of the pump drainage
effluent is comparable to the salinity of subsurface irrigation return flows
reaching the Colorado River. Pump drainage in combination with desalination
would be effective in reducing salt loads returned to the river. In deter-
mining the costs of pump drainage in combination with desalting, it becomes
apparent that this alternative is quite costly. However, with the recent
advances in desalination technology, this alternative method of decreasing
salt loads of river systems is certain to become increasingly feasible as
time progresses. This control measure would likely be considered as the
final step in an overall salinity control program, which would only occur
at some time in the future.
Cost-Effecti veness Re 1 at ionsh ? ps
The cost-effectiveness relationships for the previously described on-
farm management possibilities were examined in an optimization context. The
results shown in Figure 15 are interesting. Total capital costs in millions
of dollars were plotted against the expected reduction in annual salt load
from the Valley for the minimum cost array of practices. The curve agreed
with data reported recently by the Soil Conservation Service in a public
information brochure.
Two major strategies evolved in the analysis of on-farm improvements:
1) improvements to the existing furrow irrigation practices creating salinity
reductions of up to about 150,000 metric tons; and 2) conversions from furrow
to sprinkler or trickle irrigation to provide controls of up to approximately
250,000 metric tons. Of particular interest here is the fact that both
alternatives are mutually exclusive. In other words, in implementing an
on-farm salinity management plan, either one or the other is optimally
chosen, depending on whether the goal for salinity reduction is less than,
or more than, 150,000 metric tons per year (Figure 15). For instance, if
planners selected on-farm improvements to reduce salinity by more than
150,000 metric tons, the alternatives would be limited to changing to sprink-
ler and drip irrigation methods. Below the 150,000 metric ton figure,
improvements to the existing furrow irrigation practices would be optimal.
This structure of the cost-effectiveness functions is unique among the alter-
natives as the reader will note in succeeding sections. This uniqueness is
based on the fact that on-farm improvements themselves are mutually
97
-------
30r
J- 20
10
o
O
o
D
O
o
Q.
O
o
10
^Improvements of
/£$. Exist ing Systems
I. Head Ditch Lining-;
\2.Irrigation Sched. j
:3. Cutback Systems :•
Change in Irrigation
System and Field Drain. X
I. Side Roll Sprinklers \
2. Drip Irrigation \
3. Limited Tile DrainageX
100 200
Annual Salt Load Reduction, m tonx IO'3
Figure 15. Optimal on-farm water management strategies in the
Grand Valley (Walker, Skogerboe and Evans, 1977).
-------
exclusive and finitely limited in their expected effectiveness. For example,
head ditch linings would not be considered in the conversion to a sprinkler
system.
Laterals are defined as the small capacity conveyance channels trans-
mitting irrigation water from the supply canals and ditches to the individual
fields. Most of these laterals operate in a north-south direction and can
carry the flows in relatively small cross-sections. The cost of concrete
lateral lining is approximately $l6/m. Alternative use of PVC pipe approxi-
mates concrete lining costs for this capacity and a further distinction will
not be made. However, by this assumption we are neglecting the small seepage
losses which would still occur from concrete lined channels.
The Grand Valley laterals extend approximately 600,000 meters, less than
one half the length of field head ditches. Seepage under existing conditions
contributes about 202,000 metric tons, or slightly less than the on-farm con-
tribution. Although no attempt was made to distribute the lateral lining
costs to account for variable capacity, the cost effectiveness function for
Grand Valley lateral lining js about $^9«50 per metric ton. Thus, the esti-
mated costs of lining the total lateral system in the Valley is about $10
mi 11 ion.
The analysis of canal and ditch linings for the Grand Valley are pre-
sented in Figure 16, in which the upper curve represents the minimal cost
curve. At any point along this curve, a vertical cost distribution among
the alternative canals indicated the optimal investment in each canal system.
Application of desalting technology has been analyzed. The results show
that a desalting cost-effectiveness function for the Grand Valley, assuming
pump drainage, reverse osmosis and deep well injection of brines, would be
approximately linear at $310 per metric ton of salt removed.
The individual cost-effectiveness functions for each previously discussed
alternative can be integrated to determine the best combination of technolo-
gical alternatives for the Grand Valley. The results of an optimization
analysis are presented in Figure 17-
Presentation of the best pombination of technological alternatives de-
serves explanation. First, it must be realized that the four major techno-
logical alternatives (lateral lining, on-farm improvements, canal linings,
and desalting) only represent what might be denoted as "structural measures."
Consequently, nonstructural alternatives such as land retirement, influent and
effluent controls, pollution taxes, and other nonstructural options are not
included. The structural improvements would, however, include irrigation
education necessary to implementation of improvements.
The second point which should be examined is the value of this sort of
analysis. In Grand Valley, existing plans call for the lining of canals,
ditches and laterals in combination with some on-farm improvements. Desalt-
ing is probably not being considered. Canal linings would cost approximately
$40 million (in 1976 costs) and reduce salinity 110,000 metric tons. Lateral
lining is estimated to cost about $30 million by the Bureau of Reclamation,
99
-------
Redlands System
Redlands System
Annual Salt Load Reduction, metric ton/x 1(5"
Figure 16. Minimum cost canal and ditch lining strategy for the
Grand Valley (Walker, Skogerboe and Evans, 1977).
100
-------
I20r
I 10
c
•| 100
'i
«• 90
S 80
o
.2 70
-«—
U
60
IA
pn - farm lmprovments\
v \
Lateral Lining or Piping
I | I
100
200 300 400 500
Total Salinity Reduction, m tonx I0~3
600
700
Figure 17. Minimum cost salinity control strategy for the
Grand Valley (Walker, Skogerboe and Evans, 1977)-
101
-------
but should be possible for at least one-third this figure ($10 million) based
upon field research by CSU, and would reduce salinity by about 202,000 metric
tons annually. Under their most intensive plan, the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice estimates that $23 million could be spent for on-farm improvements to
produce a 209,000 metric ton improvement. (Figure 17 indicates that $23
million would impact on-farm salt, sources by 205,000 metric tons annually.)
Therefore, 73 million dollars would be invested in improving irrigation re-
turn flow quality by an equivalent 517,000 metric tons ($141.20 per metric
ton). Examination of Figure 17 indicates that a salt load reduction of
517,000 metric tons could be achieved at a cost of only $57 million by using
less canal lining and increasing on-farm improvements. This is a svaings of
more than 25 percent, or $16 million.
A third point of interest is: "How much salinity control is feasible
given current estimates of damage to downstream users?" Walker (1975) re-
viewed much of the literature descriptive of the California, Arizona and
Republic of Mexico damages. At that time, Valantine (197*0 has proposed
damages of $175,000 per mg/1 of increase at Hoover Dam ($146 per metric ton
in Grand Valley, assuming 8 percent interest). Other estimates in terms of
equivalent damages attributable to Grand Valley range upward. A represent-
ative figure is $190/metric tons as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation
(Leathers and Young, 1976). If the minimum cost curve in Figure 17 is
differentiated to approximate marginal costs and is congruent with damage
figures, the $146 per metric ton damage estimate of Valantine (197*0 falls
at a 400,000 metric tone reduction, while the $190 per metric ton occurs at
450,000 metric tons.
By not considering secondary benefits in the Grand Valley, or obviously
all the consequences in the Lower Basin, the level of investment in the Grand
Valley should not exceed $30-40 million. Otherwise, the costs are apparently
not justified by the damages and another salt contributor (e.g., Lower Gunni-
son Valley) should be evaluated for possible salinity control. The conclusion
is, therefore, that the best technological alternatives for the Grand Valley
are the on-farm improvements and lateral linings. If downstream damages can
be shown to be higher, then limited canal lining should proceed. Further-
more, irrigation improvements should consist of conversion to other methods
rather than treatments of (tuning-up) the existing system. This conclusion
could of course be amended if local farmers would adapt the measures neces-
sary to achieve 85"90 percent surface irrigation efficiencies (which would
imply mandatory compliance with irrigation scheduling criteria and compre-
hensive automation).
A final point to be made herein concerns the sensitivity of these
results to the assumptions in the analysis. These estimates would need to
be approximately 100 percent wrong to affect the respective feasibility of
lateral linings versus on-farm improvements, and roughly the same between1
the remaining alternatives. Such magnitudes of error are improbable given
the years of experience and the level of research effort applied to the
Grand Valley by Colorado State University and many other federal and state
agencies.
102
-------
Evaluation of Institutional Alternatives
Land Retirement—
Much of the research effort by physical and social scientists concerned
with controlling rising levels of salinity in the Colorado River Basin has
focused on structural technologies. These means typically require extensive
technical and material input often leading to substantial public and private
investments. Land retirement is one nonstructural control option that de-
serves careful study since acreages reduction or desalination are the only
technically feasible methods which can be employed to achieve the zero dis-
charge objective proposed in the 1972 federal water quality legislation
(P.L. 92-500).
To determine whether land retirement can be feasible on economic effici-
ency grounds, two sources of information are required: 1) the direct and
indirect costs of removing land from irrigation; and 2) the benefits or
incremental reduction in damages that would occur as a consequence. Direct
costs should accurately reflect the incomes foregone from farming of the re-
tired irrigated lands. Included in the indirect costs should be the net
effects of costs and benefits issuing from resource real location, social
transition, impacts on environment amenities, and other consequences in the
affected region. Program benefits may also involve direct and indirect
effects: direct benefits represent the increment of technological extern-
ality removed or penalty cost avoided, and indirect benefits (or costs) are
impacts which "stem from" the direct effects. Land retirement is said to be
economically feasible only if long run net benefits can be demonstrated,
i.e., if incremental benefits exceed incremental costs over the life of the
program (Leathers and Young, 1976).
An interindustry (input-output) model serves as the underlying structure
for the analysis reported by Leathers and Young (1976). The input-output
model is an analytical accounting technique commonly used in the evaluation
of "total" economic impacts of exogenous (or outside-induced) change in an
economy. Because of the interdependence among industries in a we 11-developed
economy (which may include small or large regions), secondary (or indirect)
impacts are often thought to be just as important as the primary (or direct)
impacts of an induced change. For this reason, the basic approach adopted
in the study by Leathers and Young (1976) is indirect impact analysis.
Land retirement mechanisms might include one or more of a number of
options, and can be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on the level
of public acceptance and participation in the program. The objective is to
discontinue irrigation on selected acreage, thus eliminating all future salt
loading from these sources. Specific program options evaluated by Leathers
and Young (1976) involve a permanent withdrawal of water supplies.
Withholding irrigation water from previously cultivated acreage in the
Grand Valley might be accomplished on a voluntary basis by state purchase of
existing water rights from willing sellers (Trelease, 1960; Radosevich, 1972).
Because of the Grand Valley's arid climate, this would mean that farmland is
taken out of production altogether, eventually returning to desert. State
purchase of privately-held water rights from legal condemnation proceedings
103
-------
would constitute an involuntary conversion. This would probably be necessary
in the Grand Valley, for willing sellers would be hard to find.
If a voluntary land retirement program is to be viable, then a critical
number of farmers in the Valley must be willing to sell their farms (or a por-
tion of their acreage) at a price that exceeds the present value of their
long-run earnings. An involuntary retirement program would surely require
condemnation and the compensation would be made at the market value of rep-
resentative irrigated acreage. A retirement program would have an added
flexibility if willing sellers under a voluntary retirement scheme could
select the marginal acreages on their farms (perhaps difficult areas to
irrigate where water losses are high and productivity low) for purchase by
the state—analogous to the soil bank program (P.L. 89-321). Under such an
option, the costs of the program might be reduced appreciably.
Two different program options were examined by Leathers and Young (1976).
One was labeled Option I and represented a partial retirement scheme. Speci-
fic areas of irrigated land which are markedly less productive (since they
tend to have high salt content and/or serious natural drainage problems that
hinder plant growth) were selected for retirement. Chief among the soil
groups that fit this description are those silty clays and clay loams de-
rived residually from Mancos Shale. Although these soils typically exhibit
poor yields as compared with the remainder of the area, conventional irriga-
tion practices are normally followed resulting in deep percolation and seep-
age losses equivalent to the area acreages. Approximately 8,600 acres (3>500
hectares) in the Grand Valley fall into this category. Together they repre-
sent 15 percent of the area's irrigated lands, and 8 percent of the area's
crop output. Since these areas of relatively unproductive soils are not
contiguous in large blocks, retirement of such lands would control deep perc-
olation from fields and seepage from farm head ditches, but would not account
for seepage losses in the main distribution system.
A different strategy, labeled Option II, was directed to the retiring of
land in an entire irrigation district. All canals and laterals controlled as
an integrated unit and the acreage (both poor and productive) they service
would be withdrawn from production. With this option, land retirement would
affect the canal and lateral seepage losses which would be excluded under the
first option. Accordingly, the costs of retirement are compiled by Leathers
and Young (1976) on the basis of two assumed rates of annual salt reduction
per acre (hectare): 5-^ tons (^.9 metric tons) under Option I, and 8.2 tons
(l.k metric tons) under Option II. A sensitivity of program costs to these
estimates is also reported. The Government Highline Canal, a Bureau of Rec-
lamation project operated by the Grand Valley Water Users Association and
which serves approximately 20,500 acres (8,300 hectares) of irrigated crops,
was chosen to illustrate the impacts of Option II. It is assumed that.this
district is representative of the Valley as a whole in terms of both(produc-
tivity and salt pickup, so that results could be generalized to a full
retirement program (Leathers and Young, 1976).
The adverse effects of reduced crop production in the Grand Valley Trade
Area are summarized in Table 10. Annual direct and indirect costs, measured
in terms of reduced community income, are estimated for the retirement of
-------
TABLE 10. COMMUNITY INCOME REDUCTION UNDER TWO OPTIONS FOR RETIRING IRRIGATED LAND IN THE GRAND VALLEY TRADE AREA
(taken from Leathers and Young, 1976)
Impacted
Sectors
Total
Acreage
Gross
Income .
Per Acre^-'
Sector la 1 Income
Multipliers^/
Direct I Indirect! Total
Community Income Reduction
in $1000£-'
Direct I Indirect 1 Total | Nonrecoverable
OPTION I: RETIREMENT OF SELECTED LOW PRODUCTIVITY LANDS
Ul
Forage and Feed Crops
Food and Field Crops
Tota 1 s
Annual Nonrecoverable
6,050
8,600
Income Loss Per
$ 158.40 .4020 .4530 .8550
223.60 .5185 .4273 .9458
($177 ave.)
Acre: $110.23
$ 385
296
681
434 819
677 1,358
574
377
951
OPTION II: RETIREMENT OF ONE COMPLETE IRRIGATION SYSTEM (AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY)
Forage and Feed Crops
Food and Field Crops
Totals
Annual Nonrecoverable
15,720
4.510
20,500
Income Loss Per
$ 275.40 .4020 .4530 .8550
537-96 .5185 .4273 .9458
($349. ave.)
Acre: $214-77
$1,740
1,258
$3,111
1,961 3,701
1.037 2 .295
3,179 6,290
2.591
1,606
4,402
— Sector gross income per acre (valued at 1975 prices) reflects a weighting of individual crops according to their proportion of the total
acreage included in the sector aggregation.
— These multipliers, net of forward linkages, measure the change in household income (returns to local capital investment, wages and profits)
per dollar of change in sector output (in this case, gross revenue per acre).
— Col urn entries are found by multiplying the product of sector acreage and weighted gross income by the appropriate multiplier. Nonrecoverable
income loss is total reduced community income less a recoverabi11ty factor of 30 percent.
-------
Options I and II under a regional accounting stance. These costs are derived
from sectoral income multipliers which are net of forward linkages. In this
adjusted form, the multipliers measure direct and indirect changes in house-
hold income per dollar change in output of the impacted crop sectors.
The forage and feed crops sector includes corn grain and silage, perma-
nent pasture and alfalfa; sugar beets and small grains are handled in the
food and field crop sector; and orchard and vegetable enterprises are repre-
sented in the fruit and specialty crop sector of the model. Since orchard
and other high value crops are rarely grown on poorer soils, the fruit and
specialty crop sector is not considered under the first option.
Assuming a recoverabi1ity of displaced resources at 30 percent, a cut-
back in production involving 8,600 acres (3,483 hectares) of poor quality
soils in the Grand Valley would generate a net loss in community income of
$951,000 annually. Under Option II, which retires 20,500 acres (8,303 hec-
tares) of average productivity, the loss if $4,402,000. On an annual per
acre (per hectare) basis, these income losses are approximately $110 and
$215 ($272 and $531 per hectare), respectively.
These costs are compared with the lower bound estimates (based on a
national accounting stance) in terms of total program costs (Part A) and cost-
effectiveness (Part B) in Table 11. Total program costs reflect reduced
income plus additional charge for implementation and administration of the
program. These charges are estimated at 10 percent of annual income losses.
Since the amount of salts avoided by retiring selected irrigated croplands
is not known with certainty, both higher and lower estimates of the provi-
sional salt pickup rate per acre were included in the analysis of Table 11
to demonstrate the sensitivity of this parameter to the cost-effectiveness
of the program.
In general, the incremental costs of salt removal (in dollars per metric
ton), using the provisional estimates of salt pickup, appear to be competi-
tive with other more expensive controls such as canal lining, drainage and
desalting. However, the cost-effectiveness of the program is quite sensitive
to assumptions regarding estimates of salts removed and accounting stance.
Accordingly, it is important that these assumptions are considered very care-
fully in comparing alternative salinity control programs. For example, the
cost of partial retirement (Option I lands) vary from $6.13 per ton ($6.76/
metric ton) to $14.30 per ton ($15-76/metric ton) depending on the assumed
rate of salt pickup per acre, and more than double if a regional accounting
stance is assumed. Leathers and Young (1976) believe that the regional
accounting stance provides a fairly generous upper bound on total program
costs.
Evaluation of Taxing Alternatives--
Varied reasons exist for not using taxation as a method of managing
water quality, but certainly an important one in the case of agricultural
pollution (such as salinity) is the difficulty in identifying sources and
amounts of pollution so that the appropriate penalty can be imposed. There
is also the problem of the farmers' inability to pass on this cost, so that
it shows up in the price of the final agricultural product.
106
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REGIONAL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS:
UPPER AND LOWER BOUND ESTIMATES FOR THE TWO LAND RETIREMENT
OPTIONS (taken from Lethers and Young, 1976).
Measures
and
Options
Estimated Annual Costs (1975 Dollars)
Lower Bound- Upper Bound—
Per Acre Total Per Acre Total
A.
PROGRAM COSTS-/
Partial Land Retirement, Option I:
Income Reduction
Total Program Costs
Complete Land Retirement, Option II:
Income Reduction
Total Program Costs
B. COST EFFECTIVENESS-/
Salts Removed in
Tons Per Acre
Partial Land Retirement, Option I:
3
5.4
7
Complete Land Retirement, Option II
5
8.2
11
39.00 -335,400 110.23 951,000
42.90 368,940 121.25 1,046,100
90.00 1,845,000 214.77 4,402,000
99.00 2,029,500 236.25 4,842,200
Dollars Per Tons
Lower Bound
14.30
7.94
6.13
19.80
12.07
9.00
Upper Bound
40.42
22.45
17.32
47.25
28.81
21.48
a/ Assumes a national accounting stance and perfect mobility of dis-
placed resources; hence the costs reflect compensation payments to par-
ticipating farmers as determined by income capitalization of long run
earnings to irrigated farming.
b/ Assumes a regional (or local) accounting stance, 30 percent re-
coverability of displaced resources, and the absence of forward linkages.
Costs are expressed in terms of reduced community income in response to
the direct, indirect and induced effects of reduced production.
c/ Total program costs reflect additional charges for implementation
and "administration which are assumed at 10 percent of reduced income.
d/ Estimated annual costs per acre divided by the indicated rates
of salts removed in tons per acre.
107
-------
The basis for deciding upon the structure of a taxing system may be
selected from a number of alternatives which can be grouped into two classi-
fications. The first is a taxing alternative in which assessments are made
against selected sal in? ty producing processes according to an objective of
least cost criteria. The second group of taxing alternatives are those re-
strained to applying some tax to each process. Since the proposed tax is to
stimulate the structural and management improvements which would be encoui—
aged to alter existing practices, the taxing selected salinity producing pro-
cess was not considered a feasible application to salinity problems and the
scope of the work by Walker (1975) was limited to the second classification.
Model Linkages—Three models were used by Walker (1975) to generate re-
sults relating to the salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin, and more
specifically the Grand Valley. The hydro-salinity model delineates the
agricultural activities causing salinity and quantifies their effects. An
analysis of damages created through the use of saline water supplies in the
Lower Basin identifies the damages originating in the Grand Valley by tracing
the salinity concentrations back upstream. Thus, the linkage between these
two models is the annual cost per ton of salt attributable to the study area.
The interaction of the models noted above and the input-output economy
model of the Grand Valley can be established with a "pollution or salinity
coefficient." The salinity coefficient linking the three models together may
be defined as the dollar cost of salinity related detriments per dollar of
output from each economic sector in the local economy. In the input-output
model by Walker (1975), six of the principal Grand Valley crops are deline-
ated as industries in the processing section (various crops) of the trans-
actions table (Table 12). Since the croplands are the sources of the salin-
ity, the salinity coefficients only have non-zero values for the crop indus-
tries. In mathematical terms:
8, = T°i YiAiCs (1)
1 TT~ t.
i i
in which 3; is the salinity coefficient, TQJ is the total salinity detriments
in dollars associated with the ith crop, t; is the total output in dollars
from the ith crop in the Valley, y- is an equivalent salt loading parameter
for the ith crop in tons per acre, A; is the acreage of the ith crop, Cs is
the unit salinity detriment from one metric ton of salt originating in the
Grand Valley in dollars per metric ton.
The equivalent salt loading parameter, Yj> requires some explanation.
The salinity resulting from the irrigation of the six crops consisted of a
quantity of salts picked up from the area through leaching and a concentrat-
ing effect due to evapotranspiration. Both effects were derived as salinity
concentration increases in the Valley outlet. In order to express these'
salinity effects in terms of tonnage, the total salt loading necessary to
cause the same increase in concentration is defined as the equivalent salt
loading. In this manner, the concentrating effects are also included in the
analysis of salinity detriments and associated taxes.
108
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY DATA TABLE FOR TAXING ALTERNATIVES
(taken from Walker, 1975).
Coeffi-
cient
a.
8i
Yi
A.
TDi
pi
Cropland Industries in
Alfalfa
1.23
0.55
6.70
(16.54)
14,600
(5,913)
1,155,000
143.84
(355.42)
Corn
2.20
0.29
8.30
(20.49)
14,304
(5,793)
1,409,400
339-77
(839-56)
Orchards
2.24
0.11
5.60
(13.83)
6,936
(2,809)
457,600
599-77
(1,482.01)
the Processing Section
Pasture
1.31
1.88
7.10
(17-53)
10,319
(4,179)
864,800
44.58
(110.12)
Small
Grains
1-51
0.63
9-90
(24.44)
7,404
(2,999)
863,100
185.04
(457.23)
Sugar
Beets
2.53
0.15
9-10
(22.47)
5,261
(2,131)
568,500
720.40
(1,780.08)
a. = The business multiplier for the ith crop. It is the column sum of the
table of direct and indirect coefficients derived from the transactions
table for the Grand Valley. If, for example, one dollar's worth of
alfalfa is produced, an additional $0.23 will be generated in the eco-
nomy (harvesting, replacement parts, etc.).
3- = A salinity coefficient equal to the ratio of salinity detriments cre-
ated by the ith crop to the direct economic output from the industry
in dollars/dollars.
Y: = The equivalent salt loading per acre of crop i. Equivalent loading
is the total tons of salt per acre which would produce both the salin-
ity increases due to salt pickup and the concentrating evaporative
effects (values in parenthesis are metric equivalents in metric tons
per hectare).
A. = The acreage of the ith crop (values in parentheses are hectares).
TD- = The total downstream damages caused by the ith crop, in dollars per
ton.
p. = The gross revenue from the ith crop and equals the yield multiplied by
' the commidity price in dollars per acre (values in parentheses are
dollars per hectare).
109
-------
A summary of the most important data and coefficients generated by
Walker (1975) is presented in Table 12. Other data presented for later ref-
erence include the business multipliers, aj ; per acre gross revenue, PJ;
salinity coefficient, Bj; equivalent salt loading variable, yj; crop acreage,
Aj ; and the total salinity damages arising from the respective crops, Tpj.
Taxing Alternatives — The coefficients integrating the three modeling
systems discussed earlier present some interesting alternatives for assessing
taxes against the croplands in Grand Valley to affect salinity control. The
formats of alternative taxing have been identified as follows:
1. Directly related salinity damages.
2. Per acre equivalent salt loading.
3. Salinity coefficients.
k. Gross revenue.
"Damage. — The directly related salinity damages from each of the
crop industries are functions of the Tnj values listed in Table 12. It is
necessary to define a new coefficient, Uj , to represent the fraction of the
salinity detriments that are to be assessed against the ith crop. Thus, for
di rect damages:
u, = ..............................
ETDi
Then the distribution of taxes is computed by multiplying the respective
value for Uj by the total salinity detriments to be offset. For example,
if the decision is made to reduce salinity damages in the Grand Valley by an
equivalent salt loading of 50,000 tons (45,360 metric tons) annually, and
assuming a detriment cost of $11.83 per ton ($13.04 per metric ton), then
taxes amounting to $591,500 annually need to be levied in the Valley. The
values of u| from Equation 2 for the six crop industries are 0.217, 0.265,
0.086, 0.163, 0.162, 0.107, respectively. Thus, for alfalfa, the tax would
be 21.7 percent of the $591,500 and then determined on a per acre basis
which comes to $8.79 per acre ($21.70 per hectare).
The parameter, Uj t represents the tax on crop i when the salinity
detriments are to be reduced one dollar. Certain of the crops grown in the
Grand Valley, pasture specifically, have relatively low net revenue. In
fact, research in the Department of Economics at Colorado State University
(Young, et al., 1975) has established that net revenues from pasture are: neg
ative at the present time. The taxes, therefore, may exceed the profits for
certain of the crops. The unit acre tax levied under this method is reason-
ably well suited to improving water use efficiencies under each cropping
system by tending to tax the least efficient irrigators at a higher rate
than those irrigating crops with better water utilization.
110
-------
&att tooALng-^e primary unit in the salinity problems of
the Colorado River Basin is the ton of salt being carried by the water flows.
Historically, the salinity sources considered for first priority in an imple-
mented ^control program have been those with the highest salt loading charac-
teristics. Consequently, a tax based upon relative salt impacts per unit
area may be feasible. The tax distribution coefficient, u. , in this situation
is computed as follows: '
The tax distribution coefficients for the crops are 0.1*»3, 0.01?8, 0.0121,
0.152, 0.212, and 0.194, respectively. This alternative shifts the tax burden
generally to the higher value crops which also have higher salt loadings.
For instance, alfalfa production taxes are reduced about 3k percent, while
sugar beets are increased by approximately 81 percent. The remainder of the
crop tax percentage are either reduced (corn-~33 percent; pasture--17 percent)
or increased (orchards — 41 percent; small grains — 31 percent) in order to
completely distribute the salinity detriments.
— The previous two methods of taxing were based
on the linkages between the hydro-salinity model and the downstream exter-
nality model. However, neither of these methods consider the local economic
relationships as would a tax based upon the salinity coefficients, 6.. The
salinity coefficients represent a linkage between all three models by expres-
sing salinity detriments as a function of the economic output from the indi-
vidual cropping systems. The distribution coefficient can again be defined
in a manner placing the heaviest tax on the most damaging crop in terms of
the salinity coefficients:
-I - zFT .............................. <">
The tax distribution coefficients are radically shifted in this case
from those discussed previously with more than 52 percent being assessed
against the pasture acreage. Even if the salinity coefficients are adjusted
by multiplying by the business multipliers, a., to indicate the detriments
per dollar of direct and indirect economic output, the distribution remains
approximately the same.
A taxing system placing a heavy burden on the pasture industry would
not emphasize either of the principles noted in earlier alternatives. First,
only orchards and alfalfa currently cause less per unit area salt loading and
thus the potential for increasing water use efficiencies would be less. And,
secondly, taxes against pasture are levied on a low income industry where the
ability to pay is probably marginal. This would induce severe changes in
the cropping pattern to minimize pasture acreage, thereby actually compound-
ing the salt loading.
6*0-64 Avenue— The nature of any tax system in this country seems to
emphasize higher rates for the higher income system, whether they be indus-
tries or individuals. Taxing on the basis of gross revenues per acre is an
111
-------
"ability to pay" concept slightly more extreme than the equivalent loading
method. In this case, the distribution coefficients are defined as:
ui TIT (5)
A summary of the gross revenue tax distribution coefficients along with
those determined earlier are tabulated in Table 13.
TABLE 13- SUMMARY OF SALINITY TAX DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES FOR VARIOUS
TAXING ALTERNATIVES (taken from Walker, 1975).
A , f •> f ~ *. i r. Small Sugar
Alfalfa Corn Orchards Pasture r . D ,.
Grains Beets
Direct damages 21.7 26.5 8.6 16.3 16.2 10.7
Equivalent
salt load H. 3 17-8 12.1 15-2 21.2 19-A
Salinity
coeff i cients
Gross revenue
15-2
7-1
8.0
16.7
3-0
29-5
52.1
2.2
17-5
9.1
A. 2
Comparison of Taxing Alternatives—The four taxing alternatives discussed
above are by no means an exhaustive list of the possibilities, although they
were selected to represent the set of taxing policies aimed at stimulating
improvements in local irrigation systems. The purpose of this analysis by
Walker (1975) was to illustrate how the linkage of economic and hydrologic
models can be made to assess the concept of pollution taxation as an instru-
ment to effect solutions to water pollution problems.
A comparison of the taxing plans presented should center on two major
questions: 1) how well will the measure induce local salinity control im-
provements; and 2) what would be the local economic impact of a taxing pro-
gram. The overall objective inherent in the first question precluded con-
sideration of taxing measures that did not encompass the entire irrigated
system.
i
Approximately one-half of the salt pickup in the Grand Valley comes from
seepage losses in the water conveyance system and research presented previ-
ously indicates that rehabilitation of laterals and their appurtenances is
probably the initial salinity control measure to be implemented. Such-a
program must be undertaken in cooperation with local land owners since most
of the conveyance system is privately owned and operated. However, the
application of water on the croplands themselves also requires a substantial
refinement. Consequently, an important comparison of the taxation procedures
112
-------
would be how well each procedure would encourage either self-improvement or
offset the costs of having certain improvements made by governmental agencies.
In this regard, each of the methods except salinity coefficients would work
well. Pasture in the Grand Valley tends to be a relatively small unit opera-
tion where people support a few animals, many of which are used for recrea-
tional ^purposes. Although water use efficiencies are already relatively
low, yields would not be significantly increased by improving efficiency.
The large tax assessments against pasture lands derived from using salinity
coefficients would do little to encourage local irrigation improvements on
the farm itself, although rehabilitation of conveyance systems would probably
result. Of the remaining three alternatives, taxation by direct damage cal-
culations probably does not sufficiently emphasize the importance of on-farm
improvements, whereas a gross revenue basis, which is highly subject to the
variation in commodity prices, tends to overemphasize the on-farm salinity
control measures. Thus, a system of taxing based on equivalent salt loading
would probably result in the best balance of conveyance and on-farm improve-
ments .
One of the reasons for not including total tax assessment for the Grand
Valley under the entire range of possible salinity improvements is the capa-
bility of local irrigators to reduce the salinity detriments downstream at
substantially less cost than the damages being caused. For example, Skogerboe
and Walker (1972) illustrated that canal linings on questionable sections
with relatively low seepage rates produced more benefits than were the costs.
As a result, the actual level of applied taxes would require detailed cost
effectiveness functions for a given level of reduction in downstream detri-
ments. Nevertheless, an important criteria for deciding upon the distribution
of the taxes would be the local economic impact. If the distribution coeffi-
cients are multiplied by the business multipliers and summed for each crop
industry, the total economic effect on the Grand Valley is determined for
each dollar of applied tax. Thus:
Total impact = Ea.u (6)
The data developed previously were utilized in Equation 6 to determine
the local economic effects of taxation of the croplands for salinity control
purposes. For the direct damages case, each dollar of taxation would create
$1.77 in reduced economic output at the local level. Values for equivalent
salt loading, salinity coefficient, and gross revenue procedures are $1.85,
$1.^8 and $2.18, respectively. The use and choice of taxing procedures^must,
of course, be left to decision-makers. However, given the local economic
impacts and the capability to induce local irrigation improvements, either
direct damage or equivalent salt loading appears most feasible.
Application of Results—Taxation is not likely to be employed to remedy
the salinity problems in the Colorado River Basin in any form except to stim-
ulate local irrigation improvements. There is, however, at least one appli-
cation of taxation that should be seriously considered. For many years the
Federal Government has offered money to irrigators on a matching basis to
construct a concrete lining in a conveyance channel or install drainage lines
to relieve high water table conditions. Based upon the work in Grand Valley
by personnel in the Agricultural Engineering Department at Colorado State
113
-------
University, one of the major problems encountered thus far is getting indivi-
dual irrigators interested in improving their on-farm irrigation methods and
practices. In most cases, rehabilitating the conveyance channel between the
supply canal and their land is given most concern. In addition, the irriga-
tors themselves have found it difficult at times to decide how each should
contribute to the cost-sharing requirements when constructing improvements.
A tax levied against the crops under each lateral with payment to be made to-
wards the cost-sharing requirements of a federally funded salinity control
program would substantially alleviate these problems. Each irrigator wou)d
be taxed according to his salinity detriments rather than ownership in the
lateral and thus would be motivated to emphasize the important on-farm
improvements.
Permit Approach—
One of the objectives of this research project was to analyze the effects
of a permit program in achieving irrigation return flow quality control. The
Grand Valley case study was chosen for analysis because there is considerable
field data available for this area. Thus, the analysis applies to saline
subsurface irrigation return flows which is the most common water pollution
problem in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The work described below in-
cludes an evaluation of the effects of tailwater runoff control, the impact
of a permit program, as well as evaluating the alternative of setting "influ-
ent" standards. Earlier experience with the Grand Valley Salinity Control
Demonstration Project by Colorado State University had indicated the neces-
sary direction for a salinity control program. The discussion that follows
is an attempt to document in a simplistic and not elaborate manner the
necessary thrust for a salinity control program in Grand Valley.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) created
a permit system for discharges from point sources under Section 402 called
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) . Through the
permit program, point source discharges are to be identified and their dis-
charges monitored to ensure that the effluent discharge limitations are
maintained. The permit defines the obligations of the permittee in comply-
ing with effluent limitations tailored to the specific conditions of the
permittee. Also, the permit sets out a compliance schedule to be followed
by the permit holder.
Because irrigated agriculture was not excluded under Section 301 of
P.L. 92-500, it became subject to the permit program. Between 1973 and 1975,
regulations for a permit program pertaining to irrigated agriculture were
issued. There was considerable backlash from irrigators and irrigation-
oriented organizations regarding the inappropriateness of such a permit pro-
gram. More recently, in 1976 and 1977 EPA has proposed a new General Permit
Program for irrigated agriculture.
The proposed new approach provides that water pollution from most agri-
cultural activities is considered nonpoint in nature and thus not subject to
any permit requirements. However, discharges of pollutants into navigable
waters through discrete conveyances, which result from the controlled appli-
cation of water, are considered agricultural activity point sources.
-------
On July 12, 197$, the EPA issued regulations which subjected agricultur-
al activities to general rather than individual water pollution control per-
mits. A point source is defined in the agricultural category by these regu-
lations as any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance from which any
irrigation return flow is discharged into navigable waters. Irrigation
return flow is defined as "surface water, other than navigable waters,
containing pollutants which result from the controlled application of water
by any person to land use primarily for crops, forage growth, or nursery
operations." These regulations recognized that water pollution from most
agricultural activities is considered nonpoint in nature and thus not sub-
ject to any permit requirements.
The above discussion illustrates that the difficulties in implementing
a permit program for irrigation return flow quality control have been more
fully recognized in the last few years. Consequently, the discussion that
follows under the next two headings serves mostly as an argument for the more
recent action taken by EPA. This argument will be followed by a discussion
of the advantages of using influent standards, which could conceivably be
included as an extension of the presently proposed EPA General Permit
Program.
Nature of the Salinity Problem—Salinity problems from irrigated agri-
culture are the result of subsurface return flows consisting primarily of:
a) seepage losses from channels such as canals and laterals; and b) deep per-
colation losses from croplands. These sources of irrigation return flow
would be considered nonpoint; however, some portions of these subsurface
return flows could be intercepted by open or tile drains, which would be
considered point sources.
The NPDES permit program focuses upon the control of point sources of
pollution. The primary point sources of irrigation return flow are canal
bypass water, taiIwater runoff, and collected drainage flows. These point
sources are conveyed in channels and could therefore be subjected to the
provisions of a permit program.
For the Grand Valley, the question becomes whether or not the implement-
ation of a permit program to control point sources of irrigation return flow
will have a significant impact upon subsurface irrigation return flows, which
are the cause of increased salt loads reaching the Colorado River. In order
to provide an answer to this question, as well as illustrate the magnitude of
a permit program for Grand Valley, the following argument discusses tailwater
runoff and drainage return flows.
TaiIwater Runoff and Drainage—The combination of heavy soils having low
infiltration rates and being "water rich" has resulted in a tremendous number
of tailwater runoff discharge points in Grand Valley. These discharges are
frequently reused by nearby farmers, dumped into adjacent laterals or canals
and conveyed to other farms, or dumped into open drains or natural washes
which convey return flow to the Colorado River.
Some examples from the lateral improvement program conducted as part of
the Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project will illustrate the
115
-------
number of tailwater runoff discharge points, and tHe utilization of these
discharges. Before construction, for all of the nine laterals that were in-
cluded in this improvement program, there were 17 points at which tailwater
was received from other laterals, 21 points at which tailwater was received
from other users on the lateral for internal reuse, 29 points at which tail-
water runoff was discharged to other laterals or canals for reuse, and 60
points where runoff was discharged to drains or natural washes. After con-
struction of improvements, there were still 17 points at which tailwater was
received, 21 points for internal reuse, 31 points of discharge to other lat-
erals or canals, and 58 points of discharge to drains or washes leaving a
total number of discharge points unchanged as 127- These results are for
an irrigated area of 275 hectares and 137 fields.
Taking into consideration the humfaer of irrigated fields (approximately
8,500) in Grand Valley, and the size distribution of these fields, it is
estimated that there are more than 15,000 individual discharge points within
the irrigated area of the Grand Valley. Therefore, in order to control tail-
water runoff by permitting individual farmers, an estimated 15,000 permits
for an irrigated area of 29,000 hectares would be required. In contrast, if
each lateral and drain were permitted, less than 800 permits would be re-
quired. The irrigation companies could assume the responsibility for becom-
ing the permittees, but they claim no responsibility below the turnout gate
which discharges water from the company canal into the individual lateral.
The Grand Junction Drainage District has constructed 35 open drains
(which discharge directly to the Colorado River) throughout much of the
Valley to convey irrigation wastewater. In addition, there are 9 major nat-
ural washes on the north side of the Valley which convey irrigation return
flows and thunderstorm runoff to the Colorado River. No individual or organ-
izational entity will claim responsibility for the natural washes.
In the demonstration area, field measurements have shown that approxi-
mately 18 percent of the flows in the drains and washes consist of subsurface
return flows intercepted by these channels. However, the major portion of the
saline return flows reaching the Colorado River are not conveyed by these
drains and washes. Consequently, if it were possible to set effluent stand-
ards for tailwater discharge, or the flows in drains and washes, such stand-
ards could only be partially successful in reducing the salt load contribution
from Grand Valley.
Inf1uent Standards—The Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Pro-
ject used each lateral as a subsystem because this provided control at the
lateral turnout gate. This turnout gate is a critical control point in the
irrigation system because it represents the terminal point of responsibility
for most of the irrigation companies in Grand Valley (in some cases, there
is responsibility along the upper portions of the lateral).
In turn, the control point for each irrigation company is the point of
diversion from either the Colorado River or Gunnison River. The responsibil-
ity for these river diversions belongs to a water commissioner who is a state
employee. The amount of water discharged at each turnout gate is the
responsibility of water masters or ditch riders, who are employees of the
particular irrigation company.
116
-------
Generally, the water users under each lateral are not formally organ-
ized. However, in many cases they have developed good relations among them-
selves in developing a water rotation, or each user gets the water on a con-
tinuous basis. There are also many cases in which there is friction
regarding the distribution of the irrigation water supplies, which is aggra-
vated by the lack of flow measuring devices along the lateral for equitably
distributing the water supply. Also compounding this situation are the
numerous unmeasured tailwater runoff discharges which are returned to the
irrigation water supply, or picked up by neighboring farmers.
In the demonstration area, the lands under the Stub, Highline and Price
Ditches have the water rights tied to the land at 0.5 Colorado miners inch/
acre continuous flow (38. 4 Colorado Miners Inches = 1.0 cfs, or Colorado
Miners Inch = 0.74 1/s). The water users served by the Grand Valley Canal
and Mesa County Ditch have shares (1 share = 0.4 miners inches, or 0.30 1/s)
which can be traded, sold, rented, or transferred anywhere in the system.
The most common concept about water rights (or water duty) in the project
area is an old rule of thumb that 1 share per acre (or 0.5 Colorado Miners
Inch) is adequate for proper irrigation and almost every farmer was sure his
diversions were close to that amount. There is, however, generally only
crude measurements of the water diverted from the canals into the laterals
and consequently very little awareness as to water quantities.
When numerous flow measurement devices were installed under the lateral
improvement program, most people found that they had been receiving 2 or 3
times their water allotment. After seeing their true rights, most irrigators
stated that: "...I cannot irrigate with my shares only," and immediately
asked if they could get more water. In order to facilitate these requests,
allow rotation flexibility and meet peak water demands, the systems were
overdesigned based upon the water rights allocations. However, proper oper-
ation of the improved lateral subsystems will result in significant diversion
reduction as compared with diversions prior to this construction program.
An initial influent standard goal should be the intended water duty for
the irrigated lands. This can be computed based upon evapotranspiration, crop
coefficients, and acceptable irrigation application efficiency standards -,
which in turn are related to pollution levels being created by inefficient
irrigation practices. This should be measured at each farm inlet, which can
then be translated back to the lateral turnout gate taking into consideration
lateral seepage losses (which could be essentially ignored if the laterals
were lined or converted to pipelines. An important consideration should be
to use either a volumetric water duty as a standard, or a variable flow rate
which is dependent upon the changing water requirements of the crops during
an irrigation season.
The approach of using influent standards has the advantage of alleviat-
ing the salinity problem by improved water management practices, rather than
end-of-pipe treatment, or partially reducing the saltjoad by using effluent
standards under a permit program. The success of an influent approach is
dependent upon: a) use of numerous flow measuring devices; b) adequate
technical assistance for working with and advising farmers on improved
117
-------
irrigation practices and methods; and c) availability of funds for making the
necessary structural improvements. However, the fear of loss of a water
right,either by individual irrigators or the irrigation companies, will likely
be the greatest constraint in implementing a valley-wide salinity control
program.
Water User Associations—
A crucial element in implementation of an effective salinity control
program anywhere is gaining the participation of the users. The unit of
organization should be the lateral subsystem because it is a natural hydro-
logic unit where farmers know each other and interact often on a face-to-
face basis. Also, in Grand Valley the jurisdiction of the irrigation com-
panies does not include the laterals in most cases; so there is an organi-
zational vacuum for most laterals. The goal should be. to gain participation
by all water users on each lateral. However, this may not always be
possible due to human problems. While the organization could be on an ad hoc
or informal basis, experience indicates that it is probably best to aim for
a formal organization with rules developed by the members themselves. A
formal organization with its own rules and regulations also makes it easier
for the implementing agency because all parties have a knowledge of the
structure and mechanisms involved. When the leadership is defined, this
facilitates the work of the implementing agencies.
The water users, for example, in Grand Junction on several laterals have
organized formally as a nonprofit mutual irrigation company under the state
laws of Colorado. One problem the members of these associations have en-
countered has been lawyer fees for incorporation. This can be overcome by
providing model sets of by-laws and other provisions to farmers considering
such organization. In fact, alternative models can be provided farmers and
they should decide the set of rules and regulations which meet their special
needs for the most effective means of operation and maintenance of the
lateral system. These models could be provided in a wel1-prepared manual or
booklet and made available to interested farmers. The booklet should explain
the benefits of formal organization, how to organize legally, and the types
of by-laws and provisions required. It is important that such a booklet be
well illustrated and in language that is readable. Often such booklets
are not well prepared and contain too much legal jargon which farmers cannot
understand. The goal is to design usable materials on how-to-do-it for the
farmer audience.
Technical Assistance and Farmer Participation--
Following is a brief discussion of suggested means for developing an
effective partnership between those individuals and organizations providing
the technical assistance and their farmer clients. This includes methods to
obtain farmer participation, the training of field level workers, the devel-
opment of basic training materials, farmer-client recognition, and evaluation
of extension activities. The underlying philosophy and assumptions of the
discussion are: a) that the findings of the present research and improvement
activites at Grand Junction are applicable for other irrigated regions; and
b) that a successful comprehensive salinity control program requires active
farmer participation.
118
-------
Farmer Participation—One of the unique characteristics of improving on-
farm water management is that the degree of success is highly dependent upon
the^degree of participation of each individual farmer, as well as their capa-
bility to^cooperate collectively for the common good of all water users. The
construction of on-farm physical improvements only provides an increased
potential for water use efficiency, whereas the degree to which this potential
is achieved is dependent upon the operation and maintenance of the physical
improvements. This in turn is dependent upon the level of technical assist-
ance provided, farmer attitudes, and the degree of credibility between those
individuals providing the technical assistance and the farmers involved.
The efforts to organize the water users under each lateral is an oppor-
tune time to develop rapport with the farmers. Credibility between farmers
and technical personnel can be developed at the time of planning and imple-
menting individual farm plans for improved water management. Credibility and
good communication must exist during the collective negotiations in determin-
ing the physical improvements to be made along the lateral. Farmer partici-
pation is crucial during these stages in order to evolve a plan of develop-
ment which is acceptable to the water users and satisfies the goals of the
salinity control program.
The final step in this process dictates the real success of the entire
program. After spending vast sums of money to construct physical improve-
ments, the test of effectiveness revolves largely around the operation, man-
agement and maintenance of these improvements. This is the phase of the work
where the rapport developed with the farmers pays huge dividends. Unfortu-
nately, this step is very time-consuming and most frequently neglected.
Considerable evaluation is required to "tune-up" these new improvements so
that they are operating at their potential, and the key variable in this
operation is the farmer decision-maker.
Training of Field Personnel—The primary agency providing technical
assistance to farmers for a salinity control program will likely be the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS will likely cooperate with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in the provision of required technical assist-
ance. Given the levels of manpower needed to work with farmers and the cur-
rent shortage of trained manpower with on-farm water management experierrce,
special short courses for training personnel will likely be required. As a
complement to technical competence, personnel working directly with farmers
would know how to develop good working relationships with farmer clients and
have definite skills and knowledge related to organizing farmers into water
user associations for action programs. Personnel also must have the capabil-
ities required for assisting farmers in "tuning-up" furrow irrigation prac-
tices and the maintenance of improved conveyance systems. Also, technical
assistance to farmers will include convincing them to use "scientific"
irrigation scheduling procedures and other improved irrigation practices.
The focus on improved irrigation scheduling is essential because the piece-
meal methods of scheduling in Grand Valley have been found to be inadequate
for accomplishing salinity control.
Basic Farmer Training Materials—Materials are needed to motivate farm-
ers and help them understand the importance to themselves and their
119
-------
communities of improving present water management practices for increased
crop production and the control of salinity. Data obtained in problem ident-
ification and alternative solutions to the problem should be utilized in
preparing well-illustrated materials for farmers. These materials should
graphically and clearly define the problem, explain its consequences, document
the contributing factors, and explain the costs and benefits. Alternative
solutions should be carefully delineated and estimated costs presented.
Techniques for such communications could include slide shows, an easy-
to-read booklet and selected use of local mass media channels. The slide
show developed for the Grand Valley project by Colorado State University has
been well received and has been presented many times in the community at
specific public meetings and for civic groups. Also, selected use of local
mass media has been found to be useful. Since a comprehensive salinity
control program requires changes in attitudes and behavior wherever such
programs are proposed, the first major consideration should be the design of
definite communication strategies. To make the program successful in reach-
ing all water users and the community, several complementary communication
methods should be used over time to reinforce the central messages. Local
conditions and communication sources and channels need to be identified and
used with imagination. Essentially, salinity control is a problem of con-
servation which requires much education on the part of farmers and
commun i ties.
Farmer C1ient Recognition—The Irrigation Field Days held at Grand
Valley on August 6~7,1976, and other experiences have demonstrated the
importance of farmer recognition. Farmers usually can sell a program to
other farmers more successfully than public officials. Where possible, farm-
ers should be given special recognition, because the success of any salinity
control program rests finally with the degree of participation of the farmers
themselves. There are a number of methods which can be effectively utilized
for using farmer recognition to motivate other farmers.
The proper use of radio and television announcements and newspaper arti-
cles can be of considerable help in fostering enthusiasm for the program. The
local newspaper provides excellent coverage on news related to natural
resources and agriculture. The local newspaper in Grand Valley has been very
helpful and always willing to include news articles pertaining to the Grand
Valley Salinity Control Demonstration Project. The television station and
some radio stations in Grand Junction have cooperated in disseminating news
related to the salinity control research activities.
The news media, in addition to news reports about current activities of
the salinity program, are also very interested in covering human interest
stories. If these human interest reports and farmers' testimonials are well-
prepared, they can create much interest with other farmers for the program.
Such publicity is free and probably can generate better image-building for
state and federal agencies than they can do themselves.
Awards should be given to those farmers who have made exceptional pro-
gress in improving their on-farm water management practices. Also, awards
for providing leadership in the water user association under each lateral
120
-------
should be considered. Awards presented to each water user served by the
lateral demonstrating the most efficient use of water would be highly effec-
tive in promoting the goals of an improvement program. News media coverage
of such awards also provides additional incentives for improved water
management on the part of other farmers. Framed photographs of farmers
engaged in improvement activities with an inscription should be considered
for presentation. Also, plaques could be presented to cooperators to show
appreciation for their contributions.
An excellent method of involving farmers for promoting wide interest in
a project once substantial progress has been made in an improvement program
is to hold a_"Field Day." In the Grand Valley, a Field Day could be held
annually which would involve strong participation by local farmers. Water
users, including irrigation company leadership, from other valleys in the
Upper Basin, could be given special invitations to attend the Field Days in
order to^observe first-hand the implementation of a salinity control program.
In addition, special tours could be arranged during other times of the year
for a group of irrigators from any particular valley to visit the Grand
Valley and meet with farmers who have participated in the program. The
emphasis should be farmer-to-farmer interaction, with the Grand Valley farm-
ers being highlighted rather than technical assistance personnel. These
personnel, however, should play a strong backstage role in facilitating this
i nteract ion.
Eva 1ua t i on of Exten s i on Ac t i v i t i es—It is not suffucient to randomly
develop extension and promotional activities for the transfer of technologies
for salinity control improvement programs. Technical personnel in such pro-
jects should be given short courses in skills needed for working effectively
with farmers. Extension communication strategies should be designed into the
project work plans in order that various techniques can be effectively evalu-
ated. While technical expertise for such programs is usually adequate, there
is a general weakness in designing and evaluating extension communication
strategies. As stated previously, the key variable in achieving successful
program implementation and long-term effective maintenance of improved sys-
tems is the farmer client himself. Since this is the case, professional
assistance is required from extension or communication personnel to assure
that sufficient attention is given to these important areas.
Communication techniques used for working with farmers as individuals
and groups should be designed into the programs and evaluated to the same
degree as the technical components and activities. Evaluative research
techniques are available which, if properly utilized, can be used to deter-
mine the strengths and weaknesses of project implementation. Information
from such evaluative studies is needed by sponsoring agencies and by project
implementors to discover the most effective and efficient methods of working
with farmers.
Water Rights and a Water Market—
The concept that is at the heart of the appropriation doctrine and which
would make the most substantial impact in solving the legal and institutional
constraints for alleviating water quality degradation from irrigated agricul-
ture is the concept of beneficial use. This is a very nebulous concept which
121
-------
defines the measure and the limit of a water right. In general, beneficial
use means the reasonableness of the diversion according to the use to which
the water is to be applied. At present, what is a beneficial use for acquir-
ing a water right may depend on whether that particular use is one recognized
by the state constitution or statutes. The concept must be conceived and
directed not only to types of uses but to the nature of the use on the farm
with respect to the users' needs. More importantly, this concept must be
viewed with respect to the users' responsibility to other downstream users
and the public interest.
The concept could be used to implement water management technology.
Irrigation scheduling and careful.water control could be encouraged through
an interpretation of the concept as prescribing to the most advanced techno-
logically feasible management program with respect to on-farm use. Conven-
tional methods of water application using ditches and borders and in some
cases sprinkler systems have the advantage of being economically inexpensive
but conversely place a great strain on the water budget due to losses through
deep percolation. Where feasible, subsurface application or the trickle
method could be encouraged which would have the effect of reducing the quant-
ity of water applied and salt laden return flows.
A major change in the nature of a water right that would serve to pro-
tect the interests of the right holder and subsequent water users would be to
add the element of water quality. In so doing, the right holder would have
the same assurance and likewise liability in the use of diverted water within
the priority system for quality purposes as he now has for quantity flows.
This change would be instrumental in encouraging practices to treat or dis-
pose of highly saline waste waters and encourage the proper application of
water on the farm.
A final doctrinal impediment in the exercise of water rights is the
transfer restriction of rights within an irrigation system to other uses,
or outside of the basin. This constraint may exist in the substantive water
law or as a result of the organizational and administrative system of the
state. There are few states that prevent the sale and transfer of water
rights from within or without the present uses. States restricting transfers
rely upon the appurtenancy concept to prevent such shifts. However, the law
should be modified or changed to reflect state encouragement in the renting,
leasing, transferring or selling of water rights to other uses and places so
long as the vested rights of others are protected. Although there are no
restrictions on the transfer of water rights in Colorado, the organizational
red tape—delay and expense—acts as an impediment. Changes in the admin-
istrative and judicial system should be made to facilitate exchange of water
rights. Recognition of such a right and a change in the concept of benefi-
cial use to include recreation, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, and other! ben-
eficial uses would serve to nullify the fear of losing that portion of the
water right not exercised by permitting the transfer of the unneeded portions
to other uses within the system.
Removing these rigidities in the law to give the right holder greater
freedom and flexibility will eliminate many of the irrigation problems per-
petuated by the appropriation doctrine. Agricultural users are subject to
122
-------
constraints that other users are not, which is frequently passed over when
comparing the use of water for agriculture to other uses.
A substantive change in the water laws affecting the administrative
organization of the state should be enacted to enable a greater degree of
cooperation between the state agencies and water users. At the same time,
the state should be permitted to concentrate on the development of a desir-
able state water plan. This change would be to enact legislation permitting
the state water resources agency or other public organizations the right to
acquire water through appropriation, purchase, abandonment, or condemnation.
The significance can be seen at the state and interstate level by granting
the state greater freedom in carrying out its responsibilities and negotiat-
ing agreements with its basin users and states.
What is needed is a means of allocating and reallocating water within
the irrigation system by an organization cognizant of the needs of water users
within the system, the state water development plan, and the basin and inter-
national compacts. Suggested is the development of a centralized state
brokerage system to operate as a market center for the exchange and sale of
water rights or renting of water available under the rights held (Radosevich,
1972). This brokerage system could be organized as a public or private
institution. It would permit water users to divert only that amount of water
necessary for their operation without fear of losing the unused decreed quant-
ity and lease or rent the difference to other users. Hence, there would be
an economic incentive to implement the most efficient water management prac-
tices in their operation in an attempt to reduce the necessary quantity of
water applled.
A brokerage system created as a public entity could be established in
the Office of the State Engineer or water planning and resource department of
the state. This office or subdivision in the various basins within the state
would list all available water for rent, lease, exchange, or sale. The loca-
tion of available waters will determine the impact upon other vested rights,
but the responsibility for delivery and protection of such other rights would
rest upon either the water right holder or water acquirer. Uniform prices
of units of water could be established or the available water could be sold
to the highest bidder. The adoption of such a system i.n state organization-
would require changes in agency laws to permit this type of activity. Like-
wise, it would be imperative that the state should have the power to purchase,
condemn or receive water rights in the name of the state. This would allow
the state to take action against appropriators who refuse to implement effi-
cient practices, acquire their unused rights and retain them for future use
while renting or leasing the water during the interim. A percentage of the
sales proceeds would be retained for the operation and maintenance expenses
of the brokerage system.
FIELD ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Similar to the Yakima Valley and Middle Rio Grande case studies, the
research project team interviewed various individuals who are involved with
the Grand Valley salinity problem. Federal and state agency personnel
123
-------
located in Denver and the Grand Junction area were interviewed. Board mem-
bers of irrigation districts, managers of irrigation districts and individual
farmers were also interviewed.
The "Summary of Technological and Institutional Alternatives for Salin-
ity Control in Grand Valley," shown in Table 14, was used as a discussion out-
line in contacts with persons being interviewed. This summary of alternatives
was used in order to provide a similar approach in discussions with each indi-
vidual or group of individuals. This approach was used to reduce bias and to
provide information in a manner that would allow comparison of different
responses to the same solution, as well as comparing responses to alternative
solutions.
There were many diverse opinions expressed. Even in the same organiza-
tion, there were many contradictory opinions. As would be expected, much of
the diversity of opinion reflects the past experience and role of the inter-
viewee. In fact, such tremendous differences in opinion reflect the diffi-
culties inherent in implementing a salinity control program in Grand Valley.
Some state agency personnel were quite positive in their approach. First
of all, they stated that they were awaiting the results of CSU's work in Grand
Valley to define the salinity control program. They felt that a "management"
approach was necessary in order to solve the problem and gain acceptance by
the farmers. They were very cognizant of the water rights difficulties.
They expressed some hope that setting standards and criteria for beneficial
use might be possible in future years, but they were very fearful of this
approach at the present time.
A very different set of responses was obtained from a small group of
state agency personnel who work in western Colorado. They made such state-
ments as, "we don't believe there is a salinity problem," "water quality in
the area is improving," and "why should $100 million be spent in Grand
Valley for salinity control." They were also highly concerned that any
modification of irrigation return flows would be tampering with water rights.
The group expressed the opinion that the present water system is satisfactory.
that water in Colorado is part of the "free enterprise" system, and that all
users have access to the water courts. However, they did admit that no one
really knows who are all of the water right owners. There was also a strong
concern expressed regarding the capability of the Soil Conservation Service
to handle so many programs, the future of the 208 planning program and that
decisions at "the top" will adversely affect the farmers on "the bottom."
Lastly, they did not think a water market would be viable. Such opinions
at least demonstrate where efforts should be made to more adequately inform
people regarding the Grand Valley Salinity Control program.
In discussions with federal agency personnel, they were quite aware of
the many problems that would have to be faced in implementing a salinity con-
trol program in Grand Valley. They were particularly concerned with the water
rights issues because they are aware that the irrigators are "fanatically"
jealous of their rights.
124
-------
TABLE Hi. SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR SALINITY CONTROL IN GRAND VALLEY.
TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES
Item
Delivery system improvements--
a. Lining of canals and laterals
b. Installation of flow measuring devices.
Probable Effect
Prevention of seepage and operational spills.
Reduction of subsurface flows.
Control of applications, improvement of irrigation
efficiencies.
Improved water application practices
a. Implementation of irrigation scheduling
program.
b. Introduction of trickle and sprinkle
irrigation systems.
Reduction of deep percolation losses.
Increase efficiency of water use via "timed" application
of water.
Gain control of rates of application of water on some
crops.
crops.
Reduce costs of fertilizer and reduce concentrations of
T- Improved management of fertilizers on crops.
, . fertilizer in return flows.
t. Improved water removal subsystem by means of tileRemove water moving below root zones to prevent deep
drains and treatment of p.ff lu^nt*. r\Ar*r-^i ?»*;nn ^«^ **-&-.«• *.u:»- (..»*-&»• ka£A.-A «jt^,-u^."*a
percolation, and treat this water before discharge
to receiving streams.
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Item
1. Real location of water via adjudication of
rights.
Probable Effect
Reduction of "water duty" from as high as nine acre-feet
per acre to 5 acre-feet per acre (or whatever amount
is necessary to irrigation in the Valley).
2. Imposition of volumetric controls, on the basis
of crop needs.
Promotion of efficiency in use of water, with no change
in "water duty" (the right to a specific quantity of
water).
3. Reduction of "water duty" by institution of
abandonment procedures against users where
there is waste.
Promotion of efficiency in use of water, because of
change in the water right.
Open marketing of water rights within the
river basin.
Redistribution of rights and reallocation of water based
on values of water in various uses (constrained only by
limits on diversion which protect rights of other users).
5. Sales by Grand Valley Canal Assn. or the
Conservancy district of "surplus" water, i.e.,
that water which is not consumptively used).
Reallocation of water from owners of "surplus" to others
who need water (constrained by capability of districts
to deliver "surplus" to buyers).
6. Return flow discharge permits (quotas)
a. Issued on the basis of the water rights
held.
b. Sold In an open market, with number of
permits reflecting the allowable discharge
of effluents.
Control of effluent discharged.
Establishes limits for discharge of pollutants by
present owners and users of water.
Requires water users to pay costs of pollution. Permits
tied to water use. Required designation of stream
standards. Likely to result in improved use of water,
shifts in use to higher value uses, some transfers of
rights.
7-
Effluent charges, based on costs of treatment
of return flows.
Requires water users to pay costs of pollution. Makes
sampling and testing of return flows necessary.
Requires designation of stream standards. Likely-to
cause more efficient use of water. May cause shifts
in use of water to higher value uses.
B.Subsidization of useful programs and practices.
a. Cost-sharing programs aimed at capital
Improvements.
b. Incentive payments for improved practices.
c. Tax "breaks" for capit
c. Tax "breaks" for capital investments.
Encourages adoption of technology and improvement in
management of land/water resources.
Provides incentive for investment in distribution and
irrigation systems.
Encourages improvement in management of land and water
for pollution control.
Same as 8(a) above.
9. Payments, i.e., rewards, for reduction of return
flows or of salt/si It loads.
Encouraged adoption of measures appropriate to
pollution control.
Encourages improved management of land and water.
10. Technical assistance in salinity control
programs.
a. Education efforts, e.g., extension program.
b. Technical assistance, e.g.
Conservation Service.
Soil
Improved understanding of pollution problems, identifies
alternative solutions, encourages individual actions
to alleviate problems.
Facilitates adoption of improved practices, assists with
improvements in distribution and irrigation systems.
Improved allocation and use of water by a management
11. Management of water in a project area by a
voluntary non-profit organization.
entity.
125
-------
The Soil Conservation Service conducted a survey during the summer of
1975 which involved approximately 1,^00 contacts. They stated that 90 percent
of these contacts were favorably disposed towards a salinity control program.
There has been a growing awareness and interest in recent years regarding the
salinity problem in the Valley, with a correspondingly increasing willingness
on the part of the farmers to cooperate with efforts to reduce the salt load
reaching the Colorado River.
In discussions regarding the feasibility of implementing a water market
in the area, there was some concern that this would result in new lands com-
ing under irrigation, which would aggravate the salinity problem. The general
feeling was that the physical improvements should first be completed and then
the concept of a water market could be discussed.
In discussions with local people, primarily irrigation company leaders,
there is a strong emphasis upon the farmer being allowed to control his own
operations, rather than having government controls. The primary culprits are
depicted as the part-time or weekend farmers, who allow the water to run for
long periods over their fields. The suggestion was frequently made that
these farmers should be made aware of the necessity to improve their water
management practices.
Considerable concern was expressed locally regarding the impact of trans-
mountain diversions by the City of Denver (and other East Slope agricultural
and municipal interests) upon the quality of water received by Grand Valley.
The question was also raised as to why Grand Valley should have to solve the
problems of Arizona and California.
There was a strong emphasis by some local leaders that efforts should be
undertaken to facilitate the organization of water users under each lateral.
They felt that lawyer fees were excessive and that more expedient means
should be considered for organizing the irrigators under each lateral.
The local people have a fairly good awareness of the proposed salinity
control program. They are generally in favor of canal and lateral lining,
as well as improved on-farm irrigation methods.
Most local people are not convinced that there will be excess water fol-
lowing the proposed capital expenditures for salinity control. They prefer to
take a "wait and see" attitude before making any commitments regarding excess
water. Therefore, their attitudes towards a water market are generally along'
these same lines. However, some local leaders are in favor of having the
option to rent or lease excess water to water users upstream from the Grand
Valley, but they do not want to make any commitments at this time.
Most agriculturalists are concerned with the increasing suburbanization
surrounding the city of Grand Junction. Many of these suburbs are canal
water supplied to irrigate their lawns. In many cases, suburban irrigation
demands have compounded water management problems.
126
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The participants in the assessment/evaluation process quite logically
responded to the alternative solutions based upon their past experiences and
present roles. They tended to view the problem and the proposed solutions in
terms of^the existing institutional framework, the costs and benefits asso-
ciated with change, the impacts on established practices and methods, and the
probable effects on social relationships. Knowing how people looked at the
return flow problem and how they responded to alternative technological and
institutional alternatives allows us now to recommend solutions, singly and
in combination, that will be implementable. The Grand Valley case study has
benefited from the extensive research and demonstration efforts over the past
eight years. The extent of the impact of proposed technological alternatives
on the salinity problem is fairly well determined. Now, we do have some good
indications of what people do not like, what they think will work, what they
will cooperate with, etc. This assessment/evaluation process has provided
valuable insight as to the requirements for implementing appropriate techno-
logies that will reduce the salt load contribution from Grand Valley into
the Colorado River.
Evaluation of Assessment Procedure
The assessment procedure was initially tested in the Grand Valley, but
it suffered from insufficient participation within all groups. The federal
agency personnel were quite informed regarding the problems that would have
to be faced in implementing a salinity control program in Grand Valley.
Also, state agency leaders were very knowledgeable regarding the implications
of salinity control. However, state agency personnel at the local level re-
flected many local opinions and were more opposed to change than many of the
local irrigation leaders. Irrigation district managers were more flexible
in their attitudes toward change, but they were constrained by their respons-
ibilities for management of diversion and distribution facilities. They also
reflected farmer-member interests, perhaps being more jealous of rights,
customs, practices, and methods than farmers themselves. Managers were quite
conscious of water quality problems and willing to do something about them.
The sample of farmers interviewed was undoubtedly biased in favor of "better"
farmers who served as local leaders of irrigation companies and the drainage
district. They were generally in favor of a salinity control program pro-
vided it did not interfere with their water rights. A larger sample would
have included some farmers not so well informed and not so capable of good
judgment.
Evolution of Solution Packages
There was a universal negative reaction by federal, state and local per-
sonnel to controlling salinity by using a permit program. Local people, in
particular, are very antagonistic and hostile towards any such efforts to
control their use of water.
The preferred solutions quite obviously include those that are directed
to improvement in the management of water in irrigated agriculture. They ar
technological — the lining of canals and laterals, the measurement of water
127
are
-------
deliveries, and the improvement of water application methods (or 100 percent
federal funding), technical assistance for improved water management, and
facilitating the organization of water users under each lateral. Most local
people prefer to consider any possibilities of a water market, such as sell-
ing or renting excess water to water users upstream from Grand Valley, after
they have seen the effects of constructing physical improvements.
128
-------
REFERENCES
Ayars, J.E., D.B. McWhorter and G.V. Skogerboe. 1977. Modeling Salt Trans-
port in the Irrigated Soils of Grand Valley. Proceedings of National
Conference, Irrigation Return Flow Quality Management. Colorado State
University. May. Pp. 369-374.
Beckwith, E.G. 1854. Report of Explorations for a Route for the Pacific
Railroad. U.S. Pacific Railroad Explor., Vol. 2. 128 p.
Bessler, M. and J. Maltic. 1975- "Salinity Control and Federal Water Qual-
ity Acts," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of ASCE,
Vol. 101, No. HY5, Paper No. 11321. May. Pp. 581-594.
Clarke, R. 1967. Water and Water Rights. Vol. 1. Allen Smith & Co.,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Clyde-Criddle-Woodward, Inc. 1968. Report on Colorado Water Administration.
Denver: Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources. P. 14.
Fremont. J.C. 1845- Report of Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains
in the Year 1842 and to Oregon and North California in the Years 1843-
44. Washington, Gales and Seaton, U.S. Senate. 643 p.
Harrison, David L. and Sandstrom, Gustav, Jr. 1971. "The Groundwater-
Surface Water Conflict and Recent Colorado Water Legislation." Uni-
versity of Colorado Law Review 43-
Hafen, L.R. 1927. Coming of the White Men: Exploration and Acquisition,
in History of Colorado. Denver Linderman Co., Inc., State Hist. Nat.
Historical Soc. Colorado, Vol. 1. 428 p.
Hayden, V.F. 1877. Report of Progress for the Year 1875- U.S. Geol. and
Geog. Survey Terr., embracing Colorado and parts of adjacent territories.
827 P-
Hyatt, M.L., J.P. Riley, M.L. McKee, and E.K. Israelson. 1970. Computer
Simulation of the Hydrologic Salinity Flow System Within the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Utah Water Research Laboratory, Report PRWG54-1,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah. July.
lorns, W.V., C.H. Hembru and G.L. Oakland. 1965- Water Resources of the
Upper Colorado River Basin. Geol-ogical Survey Professional Paper 441.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
129
-------
Law, James P. and Gaylord V. Skogerboe, editors. 1977- Proceedings of
National Conference, Irrigation Return Flow Quality Management. Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. *»51 P-
Leathers, K.L. 1975- The Economics of Managing Saline Irrigation Return
Flows in the Upper Colorado River Basin: A Case Study of the Grand
Valley, Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of
Economics, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Leathers, K.L. and R.A. Young. 1975- Economic Impacts of Selected Salinity
Control Measures: A Case Study of the Grand Valley, Colorado. Environ-
mental Resources Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Leathers, K.L. and R.A. Young. 1976. Evaluating Economic Impacts of Pro-
grams for Control of Saline Irrigation Return Flows: A Case Study of
the Grand Valley, Colorado. Environmental Protection Agency, Rocky
Mountain Prairie Region. 162 p.
Meyers, C.J. and N.D. Tarlock. 1971- Water Resource Management. Foundation
Press, Inc. Mineola, N.J.
Moses, R. and R.Varnesh. 1966. "Colorado's New Ground Water Law." 38
U. of Colorado Law Review. Pp. 295.
Moses, R. and Varnesh. 1970. "A Survey of Colorado Water Law." Note
47, Denver Law Journal. Pp. 226 at 313.
Radosevich, G.E. 1972. "Water Right Changes to Implement Water Management
Technology." Proceedings: National Conference on Managing Irrigated
Agriculture to Improve Water Quality. Grand Junction, Colorado. May.
Radosevich, G.E., et al . 1976. Evolution and Administration of Colorado
Water Law: 1$76-1976. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
_ . Selected Legal References. Vol. 1 (1965), Vol. II (1971), and
Vol. Ill (1975). Upper Colorado River Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah.
_ . 1970. "A Survey of Colorado Water Law," 47 Denver Law Journal. P. 226.
Skogerboe, G.V. and W.R. Walker. 1972. Evaluation of Canal Lining for
Salinity Control in Grand Valley. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-047- Office of Research and Monitoring.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. October,
Trelease, Frank, Jr. 1960. Severance of Water Rights from Wyoming Lands.
Wyo. Legis. Resources Commission. Report No. 2.. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Colorado
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1955- Soil Survey, Grand Junction
Area, Colorado. Series 19^0, No. 19, November. 118 p.
130
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.
1957. Annual Research Report, Soil, Water and Crop Management Studies
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. March. 80 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration,
Environmental Data Service. 1968. Local Climatological Data, Grand
Junction, Colorado.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1973. Land Use Survey. Open File Report.
Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Junction Office. Grand Junction, Colorado.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. The Mineral duality Problem
in the Colorado River Basin. Summary Report and Appendices A, B, C
and D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Proceedings: Conference in
the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River
and its Tributaries—Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada,
Wyoming, and Utah. Regions VIM and IX, Denver, Colorado. April.
Valantine, V.E. 197^- "Impacts of Colorado River Salinity." Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 100, No. IR4. December. Pp. 1*95-510.
Walker, W.R. 1970. Hydrosalinity Model of the Grand Valley. Unpublished
M.S. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering. Colorado State University.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Walker, W.R. 1975. A Systematic Procedure for Taxing Agricultural Pollution
Sources. Grant NK-A2122, Civil and Environmental Technology Program,
National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. October.
Walker, W.R. and G.V. Skogerboe. 1971. Agricultural Land Use in the Grand
Valley. Agricultural Engineering Department, Colorado State University.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Walker, W.R., G.V. Skogerboe and R.G. Evans. 1977- Development of Best
Management Practices for Salinity Control in Grand Valley. In Proceed-
ings of National Conference on Irrigation Return Flow Quality Management.
Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. May 16-19-
Pp. 385-393.
Westesen, G.L. 1975. Salinity Control for Western Colorado. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Colorado
State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. February.
White, M.D. 1975. Problems Under State Law Changes in Existing Water Rights,
8 Natural Resources Lawyer 359-
131
-------
Young, R.A., W.T. Franklin and K.C. Nobe. 1973- Assessing Economic Effects
of Salinity on Irrigated Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin:
Agronomic and Economic Considerations. Departments of Economics and
Agronomy, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Young, R.A., G.E. Radosevich, S.L. Gray, and K.L. Leathers. 1975- Economic
and Institutional Analysis of Colorado Water Quality Management.
Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State University. Fort Collins,
Colorado.
132
-------
APPENDIX A
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRAND VALLEY
TABLE A-1: GENERAL SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
County
Median Years
of School
M
Mesa 12.2
F
12.3
Unemployed (%)
M
5.8
F
4.8
Occupation:
Farmers & Farm
Managers (%)
3.6
Medi an
Income
$8,065
Per Capita
1 n come
$2,658
TABLE A-2: RURAL NON-FARM
County
Mesa
Median Years
of School
12.2
Industry of Employed:
Agriculture, Forestry,
& Fisheries (%)
7-9
Occupation:
Farmers & Farm
Managers (%)
M
4.3
F
0.3
Median
Income
$8,186
Per
Capita
I ncome
$2,580
TABLE A-3: RURAL FARM (1970 U.S. Census)
County
Mesa
Median Years
of School
12.3
Industry of Employed:
Agriculture, Forestry,
£ Fisheries (%)
39,6
Occupation:
Farmers 6 Farm
Managers (%)
M
38.7
F
3-3
Median
I ncome
$7,226
Pe.r
Capi ta
Income
$2,355
TABLE A-4: 1970 and 1960 POPULATION FOR GRAND VALLEY (1970 U.S. Census)
County
Mesa
Total
54,374
1970
URBAN
Total
25,994
%
Urban
47.8
Other
Urban
25,994
RURAL
Total
28,380
Places
1000-
2000
1,822
Other
Rural
26,558
1960
Total
50,715
Urban
23,650
Rural
27,065
133
-------
TABLE A-5: URBAN CONCENTRATION: GRAND VALLEY (1970 U.S. Census of Population)
CIty Population
1970 I960 % Change
Grand Junction 20,170 18,694 7 9
Orchard Mesa 5,824 4,956 ]j'$
Frulta 1,822 1,830 -0.4
pal'sade 874 860 1.6
TABLE A-6: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN POPULATION: GRAND VALLEY, 1960-1970
(Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Population).
County Total Urban Rural
Mesa 7.2 9-9 4.9
Colorado 25-8 34.1 2.8
TABLE A-7-' Summary Rural Characteristics: Grand Valley (Source: 1970
Census of Population).
r % Rural Non-Farm % Rural Farm
y 197019^01970 1960
Mesa 40.5 39-9 11-7 13-4
134
-------
TABLE A-8: Class 1-5 FARMS TYPE OF FARM ORGANIZATION: GRAND VALLEY
(Source: 1969 Census of Agriculture).
Type of Ownership Mesa County
Individual or Family Farm:
Farms 634
(Acreage) (hectares) (222,879) (90,266)
Partnership:
Farms 88
(Acreage) (hectares) (181,923) (73,679)
Corporate < 10:
Fa rms 17
(Acreage) (hectares) (78,380 (31,744)
Corporate > 10:
Farms 2
(Acreage) (hectares) (6,543) (2,650)
Other:
Farms 3
(Ac reage) (hectares) (357) (145)
TABLE A-9: TENURE OF OPERATORS: GRAND VALLEY (Source: 1969 Census of
Agriculture).
Class 1-5 Farms:
Full Owners:
Farms ' 518
(Acreage) (hectares) (233,691) (94,645)
Part Owners:
Farms 193
(Acreage) (hectares) (226,393) (91,689)
Tenants;
Farms 33
(Acreage) (hectares) (39,999) (16,200)
135
-------
TABLE A-10: FARMS WITH IRRIGATED LAND: GRAND VALLEY (Source: 1969 Census of Agriculture).
OJ
Farms
With
Acres
County
Mesa
a
ha
en
1
i—
139
(622)
(252)
en
"f
o
*~~
482
(889)
(360)
en
^
o
tn
92
(3,633)
(1,^71)
en
en
i
o
r--
78
(4,395)
(1,780)
en
CO
o
o
*~"
73
(6.123)
(2,480)
en
£r
o
^f
r—
61
(6,254)
(2,533)
-------
TABLE A-11: PRODUCTIVITY OF FARMS: GRAND VALLEY (Source: 1969 Census of Agriculture)
FARM INCOME
Mesa
County
Farms
cn
cn
-a-
n
CM
•r- •
34
Cn
ON
Cn
-3-
O
O
LT\
CM
177
cn
en
78
cr>
i
o
o
o
•\
LT>
CM
i
o
o
0
*l
o
CM
70
54
cn
cn
cn
cn
LT\
i
o
o
o
o
-3-
26
cn
cn
cn
«\
cn
r-~
i
o
o
o
o
\O
36
VD
01
w
ID
^~
O
68
1_
ID
O.
415
•t->
c.
a)
E
a)
i_
•_
4-1
0)
C£.
4J
1_
OJ
a.
92
^—
E
i_
0
c
^3
<
4
(D
4J
0
1-
-------
Class 1:
Class 1A:
Class IB:
Class 2:
Class 3:
Class 4:
Class 5:
Class 6:
Part-Time:
Part Retirement:
Abnormal:
APPENDIX B
GRAND VALLEY LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
$40,000 or more of farm product sales.
$100,000 or more of farm product sales.
$40,000 to $99,999 of farm product sales.
$20,000 to $39,999 of farm product sales.
$10,000 to $19,999 of farm product sales.
$5,000 to $9,999 of farm product sales.
$2,500 to $4,999 of farm product sales or having a value
of products sold of less than $2,500 provided they had the
acreage or livestock operations which normally would have
had sales in excess of $2,500. These would include new
farm operations, farms having crop failure, and farms with
large inventories and small 19&9 sales. For a count of
these farms, see County Table 13 or State Table 22.
$50 to $2,499 of farm product sales and a farm operator
who is under 65 years of age and did not work off the
farm 100 days or more in the census year.
$50 to $2,499 of farm product sales and a farm operator
who is under 65 years of age and worked off the farm 100
days or more in the census year.
$50 to $2,499 of farm product sales and a farm operator
who is 65 years old or over.
Includes institutional farms, experimental and research
farms, and Indian reservations. Institutional farms
include those operated by hospitals, penitentiaries,
schools, grazing associations, government agencies, etc.
138
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-l74d
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW QUALITY CONTROL
Volume IV: Grand Valley Case Study
IN
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Gaylord V. Skogerboe, Paul C. Huszar, George E.
Radosevich, Warren L. Trock, and Evan 6. Vlachos
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Colorado State University
Fort Col 1 ins, CO 80523
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803572
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
- Ada, OK
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fi nal
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volume I: Methodology, EPA-600/2-78-174a
Volume II: Yakima Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-17kb
Volume III: Middle Rio Grande Valley Case Study, EPA-600/2-78-174
16. ABSTRACT
The Grand Valley was used as a case study area for developing an effective
process for implementing technical and institutional solutions to the problem of
pollution from irrigation return flows. This area is the most significant
agricultural salt source in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The primary source
of salinity is from the extremely saline aquifers overlying the marine deposited
Mancos Shale formation. Subsurface irrigation return flows resulting from con-
veyance seepage losses and overirrigation of croplands dissolve salts from this
formation before returning to the Colorado River. The most cost-effective
technologies for reducing the salt load are a combination of lateral lining and
on-farm improvements. Farmer participation in such a program is very important.
Implementation'wiI I result in excess water being available for selling, renting
or leasing to water users upstream from Grand Valley.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Water law, water rights, irrigation
irrigated land, water pollution, water
quality
Irrigation return flow,
duty of water, water
al location , water prici ng,
socio-economic factors,
cultural practices, water
markets, externalities
43F
91A
91H
92D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisRepon)
Unclassi fled
!1. NO. OF PAGES
I 49
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
139
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 978-757-
R^ten No. 5-U
------- |