Download to read offline
![Research
Development
PROBLEM:
AlternaTve
water
transfer
markets
don’t
just
appear
out
of
thin
air
SUGGESTION:
“[to]
enable
transfers
of
water
from
one
user
type
to
another…revis(e)
legal
policies
and
establish…[water]
market
ins<tu<ons,”
(Culp,
Glennon
&
Libecap,
2014
p.
2-‐7).
POLICY
MECHANISM:
Wheeling
Colorado
River
surface
water
from
agricultural
areas
outside
of
the
CAP
to
municipal
&
industrial
users
within
CAP
DECISION
SUPPORT
TOOLS:
“transparent,
publicly
available
informa<on…including
the
loca<on
and
price,”
(Western
Governors
AssociaTon,
2012,
p.
60).
17](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/57058691-245c-4118-8dbf-beb80caea3db-160415044918/85/Professional-Project-17-320.jpg)
Professional Project
- 1. by Sara M. Gerlitz Commi&ee Dr. Robert Berrens, Chair Dr. Julie Coonrod John Fleck Water Resources Program The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico April 2016 1 Picture 1. Durum wheat and palm trees, (Fleck, 2015).
- 2. Acknowledgements Dr. Julie Coonrod Dean, Graduate Studies GIS Professor John Fleck Assistantship Advisor, WRP Writer In Residence Dr. Robert Berrens Director of WRP, Water Resources Professor Graduate Studies, Graduate Assistantship PosiTons 2
- 3. Research Interests Picture 2. Colorado River from South Rim, (Gerlitz, 2015). • Large river basin policy and management • Complexity of “paper water” versus what is actually flowing or withdrawn from rivers • How policy mechanisms can move undervalued water to higher valued uses 3
- 4. PresentaTon Outline Objec6ve, Intro. & Background • Research ObjecTve & Framework • Colorado River Legal ApporTonments • Central Arizona Project • Water Wheeling • AlternaTve Water Transfer Markets (ATMs) • Water Governance • Social Capital Methods, Results & Future Work • GeospaTal Tools • Agricultural CharacterisTcs • Target Crop Methods • Results • SensiTvity Analysis • Discussion of Results • Conclusions • Future Work 4
- 5. Research ObjecTve Focus on the iniTal aspects of creaTng be&er funcToning water markets through the use of decision-‐support tools for a&aining basic locaTon, agricultural producTon and price informaTon. 5
- 6. 4 Decision-‐Support Tools GEOSPATIAL TOOLS 1. USDA CropScape 2. Water Governance RelaTonal Geodatabase CROP CHARACTERISTICS 3. ConsumpTve IrrigaTon Requirement (FT/YR) 4. Water Use Value ($/AF) 6
- 7. 2 Arizona CounTes (outside CAP) Yuma County – 10 Water User Groups La Paz County – 3 Water User Groups 7 “Map of Arizona highligh<ng Yuma County” “Map of Arizona highligh<ng La Paz County,” (Wikipedia Commons, 2016).
- 8. 1 Policy (Wheeling) Focus on Social Capital Investment – Building RelaTonships with agricultural users outside of CAP Examine Water Governance InsTtuTons – With many different decision makers and resource management structures 8
- 9. Colorado River Legal ApporTonments • 2000-‐2016 Drought CondiTons • Lake Mead storage issues • Junior Priority Status for Arizona in Lower Colorado River Basin • Focus on agricultural water use Pg. 14, Figure 2. 1922 Colorado Compact States, (Gerlitz, 2015). 9
- 10. A r iz o n aA r i z o n a N e v a d aN e v a d a C a l i f o r n i aC a l i f o r n i a Pima Pinal Maricopa Central Arizona Project (CAP) Serviced Counties: Maricopa, Pima, Pinal Ü Created By: S. Gerlitz 111515 Data: UNM (2015); CSU (2015) Legend AZ_CAP AZ_County AZ_CountyCAP LCRB_USStates CRB_USStates Figure 1. CAP Serviced Coun<es (Gerlitz, 2015). Central Arizona Project 10 Picture 3. Central Arizona Project canal, (Wikipedia Commons, 2016).
- 11. Phoenix Area Satellite Images: 1989 and 2009 11 Anima6on 1. Booming Growth in Phoenix Suburbs, (Wikipedia Commons, 2016).
- 12. 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Irrigated Agriculture (Acre-‐Ft) Maricopa County, AZ Pg. 15, Figure 3. Irrigated Agriculture, Maricopa County, AZ, (Fleck, 2015). 12
- 13. “Water Wheeling” on the CAP RESEARCH DEFINITION for wheeling water: “the use of the Central Arizona Project infrastructure to transport any other water besides CAP deliveries, including addi<onal Colorado River water or imported groundwater,” (McCann & Seasholes, 2012). ENERGY INDUSTRY DEFINITION for wheeling electricity: “the use of the transmission facili<es of one system to transmit power produced by other en<<es,” (1989, U.S. Congress). 13 Picture 4. Arizona border sign, (Gerlitz, 2015). SIMPLE DEFINITION for wheeling water: Intrastate Water Transfers
- 14. AlternaTve Water Transfer Markets (ATMs) Water Wheeling Policy EXAMPLE: 2015 Water Plan—Pilot-‐fallowing program between Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District and Yuma Mesa Irriga<on & Drainage District in Yuma County, AZ (CAGRD, 2015) Western Governors Associa6on DEFINITION : “suite of tools, like leases, rota<onal fallowing, split-‐ season uses, and water banks…that…avoid the permanent dry-‐up of agricultural land,” (2012, p. 1). 14
- 15. Social Capital Investment • DEFINITION: “building rela<onships between individuals and communi<es,” (Barnes-‐Mauthe et al., 2015). • APPLICATION: “having rela<onships helps you have conversa<ons when you want new solu<ons,” (Walton, 2015). -‐Kathyrn Sorensen, City of Phoenix 15
- 16. Water Governance InsTtuTons • DEFINITION: “the rules that humans use when interac<ng within… structured situa<ons,” (Ostrom, 2011, p.3) • APPLICATION: “many centers of decision-‐making that are formally independent of each other,” (Ostrom, 2009, p.411). 16
- 17. Research Development PROBLEM: AlternaTve water transfer markets don’t just appear out of thin air SUGGESTION: “[to] enable transfers of water from one user type to another…revis(e) legal policies and establish…[water] market ins<tu<ons,” (Culp, Glennon & Libecap, 2014 p. 2-‐7). POLICY MECHANISM: Wheeling Colorado River surface water from agricultural areas outside of the CAP to municipal & industrial users within CAP DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS: “transparent, publicly available informa<on…including the loca<on and price,” (Western Governors AssociaTon, 2012, p. 60). 17
- 18. Research ObjecTve, again Focus on the iniTal aspects of creaTng be&er funcToning water markets through the use of decision-‐support tools for a&aining basic locaTon, agricultural producTon and price informaTon. 18
- 19. METHODS: GeospaTal Tools • USDA CropScape – Examine 2014 Agricultural Data – Loca<on & produc<on informa<on • Water Governance RelaTonal Geodatabase – IdenTfy water user groups & use in CropScape – Loca<on informa<on 19
- 20. USDA CropScape: Iden<fy Target Crops • Remote sensing & satellite imagery, census/survey • Cropland Data Layer (CDL) • 200+ Crops w/unique GRIDCODE value • Acreage Totals by GRIDCODE • Define Area-‐Of-‐Interest (AOI) • Data for 2007-‐2015 all 48 conterminus states • ESRI ArcGIS friendly 20
- 21. Water Governance RelaTonal Geodatabase (WGRG): Iden<fy Target Water Users 21 • CompilaTon of Colorado River Basin GIS data – Colorado State University (Laituri, 2014) – “geospa<al method to examine the governance of water resource use by sector,” (Sternlieb & Laituri, 2015, p. 52).
- 22. WGRG Example: Yuma County Water Governance 22
- 23. METHODS: Crop CharacterisTcs • ConsumpTve IrrigaTon Requirement (CIR) – Ft/Year by Crop Type – Water Volume Informa<on • Water Use Value (in 2014 $) – $/AF by Crop Type – Water Price Informa<on 23
- 24. Table 3. Consump<ve irriga<on requirement (FT/YR) key (Gerlitz, 2016). 24 CIR Averages (FT/YR)
- 25. CIR Example: Colorado River Indian Tribe USDA Data vs. Erie/CADWR Data 25
- 26. Pg. 45, Table 6. Key for water use value, (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016). 26 Water Use Value ($/AF)
- 27. Water Use Value Example: Yuma County SelecTon (Cocopah Indian Tribe/YCWUA) USDA Data vs. CWSD/CADWR Data 27
- 28. Target Crops (High CIR/Low $) 28 Pg. 47, Table 11. Combined Target AOI crops by gridcode, (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016). 7 possible target GRIDCODES
- 29. GIS Methods • USDA CropScape Data Processing – Data to Excel (for spreadsheet) – Data to ArcGIS 10.1 (for maps) – Links EXCEL spreadsheet to ArcGIS maps (4 Decision Support Tools Represented in GIS Layers) 29
- 30. Yuma County Target Crops Layer 30
- 31. La Paz County Target Crops Layer 31
- 32. Pg. 87, Table 20. Percent acres in target AOI crops, (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016). 32 Results
- 33. 33 Colorado River Indian Tribes 79.8% Target Crops
- 34. 34 Cibola Valley IrrigaTon & Drainage District 66.8% Target Crops
- 35. 35 Pg. 87, Table 21. Water governance en<<es per water user group (excluding California and ci<es layers), (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016). Results Geographic isola?on recommended for social capital investment
- 36. 36 Colorado River Indian Tribes 1 Boundary
- 37. 37 Yuma County MulTple Water Governance Area: Cocopah Indian Tribe/YCWUA 7 Boundaries
- 38. ARIZONAY U MAY U M A Gila River DOME ROLL TACNA KINTER MOHAWK GROWLER LIGURTA WELLTON BLAISDELL FORTUNA FOOTHILLS Y U M AY U M A Sara Gerlitz, UNM WRP 2016 (USDA 2015/UNM 2015/CSU 2014) Cities Rivers Wellton-Mohawk IDD HIGH (+3.76 FT/YR)-LOW ($1-299/AF) ± 0 5 102.5 Miles 38 Yuma County Isolated Water Governance Area: Wellton-‐Mohawk IrrigaTon & Drainage District 3 Boundaries
- 39. 39 SensiTvity Analysis • TEST the CategorizaTon Parameters – Original HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW arbitrarily assigned • EXPAND ConsumpTve IrrigaTon Requirement – HIGH= 2.0+ Ft/Year • CONSTRAIN Water Use Value • LOW=$1-‐199/AF
- 40. 40 SensiTvity Analysis Layers HIGH CIR LOW Value REDEFINED TARGET CROPS
- 41. SensiTvity Analysis Changes to Target Crops (High CIR/Low $) 41 Removes (2) COTTON as a possible target Pg. 63, Table 19. Target AOI crops and sensi<vity analysis, (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016).
- 42. Discussion of Results • La Paz County recommended over Yuma County • Yuma has more (LOW CIR & HIGH dollar) crops • Yuma has more water governance insTtuTons • Colorado River Indian River Tribe – ~80% Agriculture in HIGH CIR/LOW$ crops – 1 Water Governance boundary • Geographic IsolaTon – Less water governance boundaries, easier social capital – Cibola Valley IDD & Wellton-‐Mohawk • CIR & Water Use Value DefiniTons Ma&er – SensiTvity Analysis Exclusion of GRIDCODE (2) Co&on 42
- 43. Conclusions • Agricultural datasets from different sources can be difficult to combine, but was possible for this project • USDA CropScape is only esTmated acreage, but good baseline numbers for areas of interest • Arbitrary classificaTon (H/M/L), but depends on end result search criteria – SensiTvity of these categories can exclude important crops to the region (cofon) • Methods used for agricultural land in producTon, but omifed (61) Fallow/Idle Cropland……… 43
- 44. Future Work Examine (61) Fallow/Idle Cropland Pg. 103, Table 22. Percent acres in gridecode (61) Fallow/Idle Cropland, (A&achment 1, Gerlitz, 2016). 44
- 45.
- 46. Future Work Lower Basin Shortage Restric<ons 46 Picture 5. Lake Mead from Hoover Dam, (Gerlitz, 2015). • UTlize Research Methods for CAP agriculture • 1st Target Fallow/Idle Cropland • 2nd Target Crops • IdenTfy potenTal water wheeling municipaliTes • How much water needed? • What prices willing/able to pay?
- 47. QuesTons? 47 Picture 6. Yuma County Lefuce, (Fleck, 2015).
- 48. Thanks! 48 Picture 7. Lower Colorado River Basin organic watermelon, (Gerlitz, 2015).