looking for an incentive an inducement

Why save water? More ag incentives needed … Report says farmers need rewards for improving. … By CHRIS WOODKA … THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN …DENVER – excerpted) … Conserving irrigation water could benefit water quality and might make more water available for all uses, a study shows. ..But in order to fully benefit, some technical, legal and administrative changes need to be made, according to a recent report by the Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance.
About one-third of Colorado irrigated farmland, or 1 million acres, has been converted to more efficient irrigation methods like sprinklers or drip irrigation. But the state has not come to grips with how to use water saved or salvaged by these methods, the report indicates. Irrigation efficiency measures primarily have meant changes in well regulations in the South Platte, Arkansas and Rio Grande valleys so far, but the Colorado Division of Water Resources is looking at new rules for surface irrigators who make improvements in the Arkansas Valley. The rules are needed to stave off future lawsuits by Kansas over the Arkansas River Compact, officials say. The report looks at how effective agriculture conservation could be in meeting the municipal water supply “gap” identified in the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, released in late 2004. “It’s an optimistic look that shows 80 percent of the municipal water needs will be met,” Shawcroft said. Since agriculture uses about 86 percent of the water statewide, many people assume the water needed for cities will come from farms. Conservation of water on farms could result in more water to the basin, particularly where it reduces nonbeneficial consumptive use - invasive weeds or trees. Savings could come from reduced consumptive use by farmers, called saved water, or by removing invasive species like tamarisk, called salvaged water. Unfortunately, there are few incentives to either salvage or save water in the state, Shawcroft said. Measures to save water are poorly defined by law and often expensive for the landowners. “In order for me to use less water, I have to be paid for it,” Shawcroft said. Shawcroft also said the rules are different for cities. “What have they done when they’ve saved water?” Shawcroft asked. “They’ve built homes.” On the other hand, farmers are not allowed to increase acreage under their decrees, but realize savings from efficiency through reduced labor costs, he said.
At the same time, there may be basinwide benefits from ag water conservation, like better water quality or increased supply, and landowners should be compensated for saving or salvaging water.
In theory, consumptive use could be increased through efficiency measures, but individual farmers should not be required to prove or disprove those theories, Stulp said.
“Your reality is that in dry weather, everybody wants more water,” Stulp said.


Why save water? More ag incentives needed … Report says farmers need rewards for improving. … By CHRIS WOODKA … THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN …DENVER – excerpted) … Conserving irrigation water could benefit water quality and might make more water available for all uses, a study shows. ..But in order to fully benefit, some technical, legal and administrative changes need to be made, according to a recent report by the Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance.
About one-third of Colorado irrigated farmland, or 1 million acres, has been converted to more efficient irrigation methods like sprinklers or drip irrigation. But the state has not come to grips with how to use water saved or salvaged by these methods, the report indicates. Irrigation efficiency measures primarily have meant changes in well regulations in the South Platte, Arkansas and Rio Grande valleys so far, but the Colorado Division of Water Resources is looking at new rules for surface irrigators who make improvements in the Arkansas Valley. The rules are needed to stave off future lawsuits by Kansas over the Arkansas River Compact, officials say. The report looks at how effective agriculture conservation could be in meeting the municipal water supply “gap” identified in the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, released in late 2004. “It’s an optimistic look that shows 80 percent of the municipal water needs will be met,” Shawcroft said. Since agriculture uses about 86 percent of the water statewide, many people assume the water needed for cities will come from farms. Conservation of water on farms could result in more water to the basin, particularly where it reduces nonbeneficial consumptive use - invasive weeds or trees. Savings could come from reduced consumptive use by farmers, called saved water, or by removing invasive species like tamarisk, called salvaged water. Unfortunately, there are few incentives to either salvage or save water in the state, Shawcroft said. Measures to save water are poorly defined by law and often expensive for the landowners. “In order for me to use less water, I have to be paid for it,” Shawcroft said. Shawcroft also said the rules are different for cities. “What have they done when they’ve saved water?” Shawcroft asked. “They’ve built homes.” On the other hand, farmers are not allowed to increase acreage under their decrees, but realize savings from efficiency through reduced labor costs, he said.
At the same time, there may be basinwide benefits from ag water conservation, like better water quality or increased supply, and landowners should be compensated for saving or salvaging water.
In theory, consumptive use could be increased through efficiency measures, but individual farmers should not be required to prove or disprove those theories, Stulp said.
“Your reality is that in dry weather, everybody wants more water,” Stulp said.
Everyone who currently uses – water – wants an incentive to induce them to use less. Why is that, do you suppose…?

One might speculate that it is a reflection of the degree to which “we” believe in “entitlement.”

We are seduced by concepts such as “beneficial use” which gives legal illusory credence to our individual entitlement to the use of specific water in a manner solely beneficial for our individual use.

We allow others to define – water – as a commodity as oppose to a right – though mere words they right quite different bells.

If “we” – that’s you and me – truly need an incentive or inducement to utilize less – water – might is be sufficient that our individual life and those of our family hang in the balance.

Or “we” can continue to live and believe that our greed is our creed.

It’s simply a matter of awareness and perspective.