Evolving Water Institutions in an Urbanizing West: Discussion

Abstract

There is little in either Vaux or Young paper with which I seriously disagree. This general agreement among two authors, myself, and I believe even among most members of western U.S. establishment is a measure of how water in West seem to be working themselves out. The major battles between states over allocation that we saw in 1950s and 1960s have gradually been reduced to rather minor economic and legal haggling over matters of interstate commerce (e.g., New Mexico and El Paso, Texas, dispute). Fights over massive dam building and delivery projects have faded as all but most outrageously uneconomic sources have been developed. It has become almost impossible for academics to infuriate politicians and citizenry of West, as Young and I did in 1967, simply by suggesting moves toward economic efficiency in use and development (Young and Martin). When even western governors announce, as they did after their recent 1986 conference, that states should move toward markets to solve their expected future demand problems, one knows that there is little left for academics to say. As an academic, one might even wonder if he is still on right side! My minor disagreements with Vaux are mostly over his characterization of current situation rather than with his ultimate conclusion that in West the problem appears to be one of altering institutions which promote underpricing of and tend to lock into existing uses. I could hardly disagree with that conclusion since it is same conclusion that Young and I reached in 1967 and have been repeating ever since. I argue that institutions are evolving as demand for grows, and, except in isolated areas within some western states, problems do not really loom as Vaux suggests. Vaux states that the current picture of western resources. . . . is one characterized by increasing physical scarcity and use patterns that are overwhelmingly dominated by agricultural sectors. To extent that groundwater is being mined, one can say that total physical quantity of is becoming more scarce. Physical scarcity may indeed become a problem in urban areas such as Tucson, Arizona, where a rapidly growing population is depleting aquifer over which city is built (Martin et al. 1986). But in most areas where use is overwhelmingly dominated by agricultural sector, or by a nearby agricultural sector, physical scarcity problem may well solve itself as increasing groundwater pumping costs induce decreased irrigation. It is economic scarcitynot physical scarcity-that is likely to be major future problem (Kelso, Martin, and Mack). As Vaux suggests in his section on demand, quantity of irrigation to be demanded for agriculture is unlikely to grow. I suggest that it is more likely to decline as costs increase substantially in future. Vaux comments that where groundwater is mined, associated decline in tables will lead to higher extraction costs. While that obviously is true, table may cease to decline in areas where agricultural use tapers off. This already is happening in some of groundwater areas of Arizona (Bush and Martin). But it is not necessarily areas of deepest pumping lift where this is occurring. Energy costs have far more effect on production costs than does depth to groundwater. In Arizona, some of deepest pumping areas have lowest pumping costs, and some of shallowest areas have highest. Energy subsidies, both for groundwater and for surface transportation, are important variables, rather than depth to or transportation distance (Bush and Martin). William E. Martin is a professor of agricultural economics, University of Arizona.