Desire versus need: water for agriculture

Roger A. Bachman

Capital Press

September 7, 2007

John Burt's op ed piece in your August 3 issue about the importance of water to the future of agriculture cites two situations erroneously.

He writes of the Klamath farmers keeping "the water they already had the rights to."

Two comments: a) A water right does not guarantee that the water will be available. That depends on other claims to the water, such as the Endangered Species Act. The system that controls availability is too complex to discuss here. b) Those pre-1909 senior Klamath water rights have yet to be adjudicated.  Until they are, the Water Resources Department is prevented from enforcing the laws and rules which guide correct use of irrigation water. For example, the rule that limits water to the "amount necessary for the beneficial use." In this case, irrigation. How many Klamath irrigators will be found to comply with that limit when the adjudication process is finally completed?

Burt writes of the "need" for more water for agriculture. This should be more accurately stated as the desire for more water. Need can only be demonstrated by careful measurement and application of water use so that the soil is not wetted below the root zone. Many irrigators do not bother to do this. The ones who do are usually motivated by the cost of doing so, not by compliance with the law. In places like the Umatilla basin, where high value crops are grown, many irrigators can afford to use modern technology to control the application of their water because it saves them money.

In the Deschutes basin irrigators, cities and the Warm Springs Tribes are working together to conserve on farm use so that streamflows can be restored in certain critical reaches at critical times. We need more cooperation of this kind.

The Oasis Project would remove flow from a critical reach of the Columbia River at a critical time for salmon survival. Are the irrigators in that basin using their water as efficiently as possible now? Only when that question is answered should anything like the Oasis Project be considered.

It is irrelevant to cite Washington and Idaho 's misuses of Columbia and Snake irrigation water as a reason for Oregon to misuse it. How about converting the 30,000 acres of passive irrigation of softwood trees for pulp back into growing vegetables? The trees typically use 3.5 acre feet of water per year as compared to the typical 2.5 to 3 acre feet for growing potatoes. Go figure.

My views are informed by four years of service on the Water Resources Commission and discussions with many farmers. Mr. Burt has some studying to do before using his status as an extension agent as a credential for writing about water use in Oregon .

Roger A. Bachman, Portland 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?Search=1&Article

ID=35033&SectionID=75&SubSectionID=&S=1