CHAPTER 8 COORDINATED MANAGEMENT OF WATER SUPPLIES TO MAXIMIZE USAGE—A STATE PERSPECTIVE

• Jurisdiction: United States

Water Acquisition for Mineral Development
(Mar 1978)
CHAPTER 8
COORDINATED MANAGEMENT OF WATER SUPPLIES TO MAXIMIZE USAGE—A STATE PERSPECTIVE
Dallin W. Jensen,
Assistant Attorney General State of Utah
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

I. INTRODUCTION

Expanding and competing demands for water are placing a great deal of additional stress on state water resource management programs.¹ It has been fashionable in recent years to point to the great quantities of water required for certain energy-related projects as being the cause for many of today's water management problems. However, this is only partly true. It is correct that a great deal of national attention is being centered on our western coal reserves, oil shale, tar sands deposits, and other mineral resources as a means of partially satisfying the energy needs of the Nation, and that the development of these mineral resources can require large quantities of water.² But it is also true that the increased demand for water for mineral development and energy production comes at a time when claims are being asserted for a greater share of our water resources in behalf of Indians fish and wildlife, and recreation uses, as well as increasing requirements for such traditional uses as agricultural and municipal development. Thus it is certainly an oversimplification to suggest that mineral development and energy programs are solely responsible for placing the present strain on the existing water management framework. In a sense it is ironic that the increasing demands for water for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and other consumptive uses comes at a time when many States are also making an effort to recogize and preserve certain instream values which have been jeopardized by the past development and use practices.³ The ability of a State to deal effectively with the problems presented by today's competing water use demands will depend, in large part, on the water management tools which are available to achieve the coordinated management of the water supply for maximum utilization of the available water. Other recent events have caused additional attention to be focused on state water management programs.

Many water management and conservation problems were brought to the fore by the drought conditions which engulfed most of the Western United States this past year. It was realized that there is a great need to invoke conservation measures and water management practices to achieve a greater public benefit from the water being diverted and used, and that a more substantial effort would

[Page 8-2]

have to be made to curtail and prevent wasteful water use practices. While temporary measures were implemented in many States to stretch the available water supply, it is probably too early to tell to what extent there will be any lasting improvements made in our water management programs as a result of drought-created problems.⁴

Also, the States have experienced a good deal of trauma over current efforts by the Federal Government to evaluate and reformulate the federal role in water resource development and management. Numerous options and tentative proposals have been formulated by the Federal Government as a part of this water policy evaluation, and the States are eagerly awaiting the announcement of the final federal position by the President.⁵ But the relevant point here is that a number of the options which were presented to the States dealt with water management and conservation programs which the States believe are within their province and should not be pre-empted by the Federal Government. It now appears that the rather solid negative responses by the States to some of these options has resulted in certain options being dropped, and others re-formulated, but some management programs are still under consideration. It appears that the States must realize they will have to make a continuing effort in the water management field to solve the evolving water use problems if they are going to be successful in preventing federal intrusion into traditional areas of state water resource management.

It must be admitted that efforts to achieve coordinated and conjunctive water resource management have been somewhat slow to develop in the West. The reason for this, in part, is the very nature of the Appropriation Doctrine. This Doctrine is geared to the acquisition and protection of private water rights, and not necessarily to the maximum usage of the resource. Once a State allocates water to an individual, there is still some measure of state control, but this control—at least historically—has centered primarily around assuring that the individual receives the water which he has been allocated.⁶ The type of coordinated and conjunctive management practices which may be desirable on a river system to realize the maximum benefit from the resource has been constrained by the nature and extent of the existing private rights on the source. And, of course, private rights must and should be protected. The difficult challenge is to develop management techniques which can maximize the use of the resource and still offer existing uses the measure of protection to which they are entitled.

[Page 8-3]

Even though coordinated water management programs have not developed at a rapid rate on any significant state-wide or basin-wide scale, nevertheless some programs do exist to achieve better water resource management as it relates to the allocation, transfer and conjunctive management of a state's water resources. Since the theme of this Conference is the evaluation of some of the methods which might be available to potential developers of the states' water resources, this paper will consider some of the more practical and pragmatic aspects of coordinated management, as well as certain new developments in this field, and will offer a few observations on future trends.

It should also be realized that there is a transition taking place in most States concerning water allocation decisions involving major industrial development. Historically, the water right administrator was substantially independent from other decision-making entities in State Government which may play some role in the authorization of such projects. In other words, a project developer was able to secure a water right for a project, and do so rather independently from whatever other approvals may be required at the state level. This is no longer true in some States. In these States an effort is being made through state environmental policy acts, industrial siting acts, and other similar legislation to define and implement a more coordinated state policy for this type of development, and to require some evaluation of all facets of the proposed project at the beginning phase rather than having a totally independent authorization of the various increments of the project by individual state agencies.⁷ This trend is likely to continue as States continue to strive for a more coordinated land and water use policy.

While the role of the Federal Government in water resource management and development is outside the scope of this presentation, it must also be remembered that the Federal Government may play a substantial role in the authorization of many of such projects because of federal regulatory controls dealing with air and water quality, rights-of-way that may be required across federal property, environmental protection under NEPA, and other federal programs.

It is now time to review some of the water management programs that exist at the state level to achieve a more coordinated use of the states' water resources. Because of the treatment of water allocation by other speakers, this subject will receive only limited attention in this presentation. The primary emphasis here will be on management programs dealing with the administration and transfer of existing rights.

[Page 8-4]

II. SOME OPTIONS FOR COORDINATED AND CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT

A. Coordinated Management by Public Districts on a Voluntary Basis

Many States have been slow in requiring the coordinated management of their water resources. However, where the proper incentives have been present, such programs have been implemented to a limited degree on a voluntary basis. This usually occurs where a public district or some other entity is involved which has more than one source of water and which encompasses a sufficiently broad service area so that such a program offers benefits to the district's customers either in terms of a more reliable water supply or reduced costs for water delivered. This approach to coordinated water management can probably be best demonstrated by a specific example of such a program.

The Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District was organized in 1951,⁸ primarily to provide water for unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County, Utah. In subsequent years it made numerous filings for wells at selected locations throughout the County.⁹ If the State Engineer had approved these applications on the basis of their priority, this District might have had a sufficient water supply to meet its needs past the year 2020, but other districts and municipalities in Salt Lake County would have suffered shortages by 1975.¹⁰

However, the Salt Lake District was presented with an alternative program to meet its future needs. In 1956, Congress authorized the Central Utah Project¹¹ to import water to the Bonneville Basin from those Colorado River tributaries in the Uinta Basin area of Utah. Thus, the next major source of supply for this area is to be the importation of water from the Colorado River System.¹² But this project could only become economically feasible if it were sponsored by a large public-type district with the power to levy ad valorem taxes, and which provides a substantial market for such water. It was in the public interest for the underground water of Salt Lake County to be used to meet the short-term needs of all the...