Water Allocation Planning

1
Water Allocation Planning

• EVR 5935 Integrated Water Resources Management
• October 25, 2006

2
The Basic Right to Water

• Water is a limited natural resource and a
  public good fundamental for life and health. The
  human right to water is indispensable for leading
  a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for
  the realization of other human rights.
• The human right to water entitles everyone to
  sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically
  accessible and affordable water for personal and
  domestic uses.
• 26 November 2002 United Nations COMMITTEE ON
  ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

3
Water Allocation Laws in the USA
1800-1899 Eastern States Riparian Doctrine
adopted from the Code Napoléan and English Common
Law. The owners of property adjacent to streams
and rivers had a usufructory right to water in
that stream.

• Riparian water rights extended to the center of
  non-navigable streams

• Navigable streams were owned by the general
  public and could not be obstructed.

• The right to develop mills and mill dams
  belonged to the riparian landowner on either side
  of the stream and could be lawfully transferred
  when the property was sold.

• Excess water could not be diverted from a stream
  and had to be returned unimpaired in both
  quantity and quality.

• Injured riparian landowners had to be
  compensated for injuries.

Pierce Mill, Penn.
Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
4
Water Allocation Laws in the USA cont.
1800-1850 Western States Water allocation
decisions based on the acequia irrigation system,
adopted from Arabia (but already in practice
among native Americans) and administered by a
mayordomo (or irrigation system superintendent).

• System of ditches to divert water from streams
  and supply it for domestic and irrigation uses.

• Decisions about water management were made by a
  town council, which could allocate water between
  towns in the same basin and even limit the
  populations of areas within its purview.

• Pueblo Water Rights were also recognized
  (deriving from Spanish Law) which granted the use
  of water that flowed through a town to that
  towns citizens. Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las
  Vegas New Mexico all claim water today based on
  this system.

Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
5
Water Allocation Laws in the USA cont.
1850-1899 Western States The Doctrine of Prior
Appropriation becomes the defining concept in
water allocation decisions. This Doctrine states
that the right to use water is separate from
other property rights. The first person to
withdrawal water and put it to beneficial use
holds the better right.

• A water right is acquired by diverting water
  from its source and putting it to a beneficial
  use.

• A priority date is then acquired by filing
  papers with local courts or State agencies.

• Late comers (junior appropriators) may not
  divert water if insufficient water exists to
  satisfy the needs of the senior appropriators.

• Eventually the California Legislature passed a
  water law that combined the principles of the
  Riparian and Prior Appropriation Doctrines. This
  California Doctrine specified that Riparian
  Doctrine governed water allocation in humid parts
  of the State and Prior Appropriation Doctrine
  governed water allocation in arid parts of the
  State. This system has since been adopted by
  several other states.

Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
6
Water Allocation Laws in the USA cont.
1900 - Present The Riparian Doctrine Currently
31 States base their water law on this Doctrine.
Its form has evolved, and two basic principles
now best describe it.

• Reasonable Use Principle a landowner can
  divert any amount of water provided it does not
  interfere with the reasonable use of other
  landowners.

• Correlative Rights Principle landowners must
  share common water sources and the proportion
  allotted to each landowner is proportional to the
  amount of their land lying along the water
  course.

Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
7
Water Allocation Laws in the USA cont.
1900 - Present The Doctrine of Prior
Appropriation The doctrine has also evolved
over the last century. The California Doctrine
still governs water allocation in 9 western
states with both humid and arid areas, while the
more strict Colorado Doctrine governs water
allocation in the remaining more arid states.

• Today, prior appropriation is based mainly on
  historical diversions. A senior appropriator has
  rights to his/her historical amounts but would
  become a junior appropriator of additional rights.

• All holders of water rights must occasionally
  justify their need for the rights they hold and
  demonstrate that the water is still diverted to
  beneficial uses..

Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
8
Groundwater Water Allocation Laws in the USA

• In Spanish times the Rule of Absolute Ownership
  governed access to groundwater. The landowner
  owned all groundwater beneath his property.

• Today the principles of Reasonable Use and
  Correlative Rights govern use of groundwater.

• As with surface water, groundwater law is
  dictated at the State level.

Source T. V. Cech, Principles of Water
Resources, 2003.
9
Water Allocation Laws in the USA
10
Colorado River Basin Area 700,000
km2 States Wyoming Colorado Utah New
Mexico Nevada Arizona California
11
The Colorado River Compact Agreement signed
between States in 1922 to avert future problems,
avoid Federal involvement, and minimize potential
legal problems. Water divided evenly between
upper and lower basin States (7.5 maf/y). More
precisely, the Upper Basin States agreed to
supply the lower basin States with 7.5 maf/y over
a 10 year period. Immediate issues arose because
this presumed that annual Colorado River flow was
in excess of 15 mafp/y, but it is in fact less.
Real average more like 13.5 maf/y and ranged from
4 to 20.
12
The Colorado River Compact (cont.) Upper basin
States reached their own agreement, and in 1948
this was finalized as Colorado - 51.75 Utah -
21 Wyoming - 13 New Mexico - 11.25 Sharing
of water was much more contentious in the lower
States, however, and it was not until 1952 that
rights were established, and this required
intervention by the Supreme Court Arizona - 2.8
mafy California - 4.4 mafy Nevada - 300,000 afy
13
The Colorado River Compact (cont.) States differ
greatly in their use of their allotments. Nevada
estimates using its entire allotment by
2015. Meanwhile California has been
capitalizing on the surplus of others and has
been exceeding its allotment for years. In 1997
it used 5.2 maf instead of the 4.4 allotted to
it. As of 1990 the lower basins have used their
entire 7.5 maf. New concerns have added
complexity to the management of Colorado River
water. These include environmental issues and
Indian water rights. Most contentious battles
today are being waged in California, where cities
are trying to assert their rights to water at the
expense of agricultural areas. Imperial
Irrigation District versus City of San Diego.
14
Many Issues and Challenges

• What about Native American water rights?
• How much should they have?
• Should there be provisions for transfers,
  leasing, selling?
• Should agricultural water be less subsidized?
• Should there be new options for satisfying the
  needs of rapidly growing urban areas?
• What are the true costs of water?
• How to protect the environment? Endangered
  species?

15
Endangered Species of the Colorado River
The recovery program includes five elements
(1) habitat management (2) habitat
development and maintenance (3) native fish
stocking (4) controlled non-native and sport
fish management (5) research, data management,
and monitoring.
Colorado Squawfish
Bonytail Chub
Razorback Sucker
Humpback Chub
16
Water Allocation in Australia The Murray Case
Study

• Section 101 of the 1997 Water Resources Act
  states that catchment water management boards
  must prepare water allocation plans that
• include an assessment of the quantity and quality
  of water needed by the ecosystems that depend on
  the water resource and the times at, or the
  periods during, which those ecosystems will need
  that water and
• include an assessment as to whether the taking or
  use of water from the resource will have a
  detrimental effect on the quantity or quality of
  water that is available from any other water
  resource and
• provide for the allocation (including the
  quantity of water that is to be available for
  allocation) and use of water so that
• an equitable balance is achieved between social,
  economic and environmental needs for the water
  and
• the rate of use of the water is sustainable

17
1997 Water Resources Act (Cont)

• in providing for the allocation of water take
  into account the present and future needs of the
  occupiers of land in relation to the existing
  requirements and future capacity of the land and
  the likely effect of those provisions on the
  value of the land and
• assess the capacity of the resource to meet the
  demands for water on a continuing basis and
  provide for regular monitoring of the capacity of
  the resource to meet those demands and
• provide for the transfer of and other dealings
  with water allocations and
• specify the applications for the transfer of a
  license or the water allocation of a license (if
  any) in relation to which section 40 will apply
  and
• identify the changes (if any) that are necessary
  or desirable to a Development Plan under the
  Development Act 1993 or to any Act or subordinate
  legislation and
• include such other information or material as is
  contemplated by this Act or is required by
  regulation.

18
The River Murray in South Australia
19
River Murray Dependent Ecosystems

• Lower Lakes now reservoirs containing Ramsar
  wetlands
• Coorong 100 km coastal lagoon
• Channel now essentially lacustrine due to flow
  regulation.
• Wetlands
• Floodplain

20
Murray Dependent Ecosystems
21
Murray Dependent Ecosystems

• As a general principle, the quantity and timing
  or period of water delivered to water dependent
  ecosystems along the River Murray should, within
  the constraints of a highly regulated river
  system, mimic the natural flow regimes that
  occurred before river regulation and high-flow
  events should continue to occur in late spring.

22
Murray Dependent Ecosystems

• The current median flows to South Australia must
  be increased. The River is in ecological decline,
  with the current median flow of 4,714 GL per
  annum (38 of natural median). A return to the
  flows of 1970 (63 of natural median) would
  achieve significant ecological improvement in the
  River. However, an increase to 7,025 GL (55 of
  natural median) would deliver the above flow
  regime and halt the decline in river health. This
  is an increase of approximately 2,200 GL in the
  annual median.

23
Murray Dependent Ecosystems

• Lower Lakes
• Goal Ensure that fish passage is not hindered,
  sediment is transported out of the Murray Mouth,
  and fresh water enters the estuary. Maintain lake
  habitats.
• Prescription Entitlement flows of 1,850 GL per
  annum and median flows of 4,850 GL per annum
  should, as an absolute minimum, be maintained.
  The median flow target is 7,025 GL.

24
Murray Dependent Ecosystems

• Channel
• Goal Mimic key components of natural flow
  regime.
• Prescription
• 40,000 ML per day for up to eight consecutive
  weeks on average every second year.
• Draw-down weir levels to the lowest possible
  levels for two months in late winter-early
  spring.
• Before late spring flood peaks, weir pools should
  be drawn down to the lowest possible level.
• pulse flows in spring-early summer, increasing by
  10,000 ML per day for two to three weeks.

25
Current allocations demands along the River
Murray Prescribed Watercourse
26
Meeting Future Demands

• Under regulation, the annual average and annual
  median flows of River Murray water to South
  Australia are currently 6 702 GL per annum and 4
  714 GL per annum, respectively.
• The South Australian Government made a decision
  in 1969 to limit further consumptive diversions
  on the basis of the ecological and water quality
  needs to the river under low flow conditions.
• Having regard to the requirements of the Cap, it
  is likely that any future demands for water for
  consumptive purposes will need to be met by
  intra-state or inter-state transfers of water
  allocations.

27
Paper Discussion
MS Babel, AD Gupta, DK Nayak. 2005. A Model
for Optimal Allocation of Water to Competing
Demands. Water Resources Management 19 693-712.