Mandates vs markets: addressing over-allocation of Pacific Northwest River Basins

Abstract

Water has always been the key element of human development, quality of life, and transportation in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). While seemingly abundant when irrigation was first developed in the 19th Century, today many PNW rivers are fully allocated, leading to conflict in times of drought, a situation which may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change. In the PNW, water is managed by an array of Federal, State, and non-governmental entities, each with its own perspective and mission. This paper discusses the relative merits of solutions based on supporting market mechanisms through improved definition of water rights on the one hand, and authoritative mandates on the other.

Assessing water resources adaptive capacity to climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America

“…3) can be important barriers to adaptative actions that seek to increase flexibility in managing water supply and demand (Slaughter and Wiener, 2007;Slaughter, 2009). Despite these potential concerns, major changes in the fundamental structure of these arrangements seems very unlikely due to the sociopolitical intractability of such changes.…”

“…Such approaches have been tried with some success in recent decades in Idaho (Slaughter, 2009). One explanation for the apparently greater willingness to consider changes in water law related to water transfers is that there is a potential economic benefit to individual water rights holders associated with the transfer water in times of shortage; whereas such benefits are not obvious in a shift to a fundamentally revised water allocation system.…”

“…Likewise, the dramatic increase in complexity of the Columbia River basin's operating policies over the last 50 yr or so has been identified as an important obstacle to climate change adaptation because of the difficulty and cost of evaluating the integrated effects of increasing population, hydrologic changes, and other factors on a wide array of interconnected management objectives (Cohen et al, 2003) Historical perspectives and experience also play an important role in informing adaptive capacity to climate variability and climate change. Slaughter et al (2007), for example, argued that management systems in the Snake River basin (located in the arid southeastern corner of the Columbia basin) were much more robust to drought impacts than the Klamath River basin in southern OR and northern CA largely because severe droughts were a common occurrence in the Snake basin, whereas, until a severe water supply crisis occurred in 2001, water shortages had rarely (if ever) been experienced historically in the Klamath basin. Thus historical conditions in the Snake basin resulted in management systems that were informed by well-established, well-coordinated, and frequently exercised management plans designed to cope with drought, whereas in the Klamath basin an unprecedented drought in 2001 resulted in serious impacts to stakeholders because these institutional arrangements had not been established.…”

Assessing water resources adaptive capacity to climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America

“…Likewise,wide-spread adherence to rigid 19th century water laws and inflexible institutional arrangements associated with water allocation (Sect. 3) can be important barriers to adaptative actions that seek to increase flexibility in managing water supply and demand (Slaughter and Wiener, 2007;Slaughter, 2009). Despite these potential concerns, major changes in the fundamental structure of these arrangements seems very unlikely due to the sociopolitical intractability of such changes.…”

“…A greater willingness to deviate from current practice has been apparent, however, in attempts to increase flexibility in the transfer of water between users in response to drought, using, for example, water markets or water banks (Fereday et al, 2009;WDOE, 2004). Such approaches have been tried with some success in recent decades in Idaho (Slaughter, 2009). One explanation for the apparently greater willingness to consider changes in water law related to water transfers is that there is a potential economic benefit to individual water rights holders associated with the transfer water in times of shortage; whereas such benefits are not obvious in a shift to a fundamentally revised water allocation system.…”